Solidarity

Putin brought Russia back from the economic abyss of the early-mid 90's. I think people probably have some idea, but don't really 'get' how economically shattering and corrupt the transition was to a free-market in post soviet Russia. The average person got screwed mightily with the state selling off profitable industries to well connected robber barons at disgustingly corrupt prices (think 5% of the actual value... of multi-billion dollar companies). The result was crashing wealth and personal income, shortages of basic goods, ect. Then Putin took over, curbed the power of the oligarchs, re-nationalized the oil industry and introduced other economic reforms. Maybe he had lucky timing, or maybe he made some really smart decisions, but I don't think it really matters. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soviet_Union.PNG That's the kind of thing that resonates with people... This all leads to my opinion... I'd say the possibility of a coup is virtually non-existent. Putin is as popular as he's ever been, and the state is as powerful as it has been in decades. Another point against a coup is Putin is a cagey ex-KGB operative, he probably has a lot of friends in the intelligence apparatus and would be more aware of any suspicious moves against him than someone else without his history.

97% of people in Scotland have registered for the referendum... pretty incredible. If you give people a real choice they will be engaged in the democratic process. Time to scrap FPTP! That number obviously includes a lot of first time voters, and people who simply gave up voting due to the similarity of the 3 London Tory parties... The main issue in the referendum seems to be disillusionment with the corruption, cronyism, banking/London/SE England focused parties, none of which represent key left wing values of Scottish society, such as social justice, equality, fairness. The warmongering and support of banking fraudsters by the traditional party of Scotland, Labour would appear to have been the last straw. When the best you can hope for is Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, with the worst being Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and David Cameron it's a pretty bleak outlook. The current government has been taking an austerity based approach, while giving ridiculous discounts on the sale of public assets like the postal service, and subsidizing things such as private rail contracts, private security contracts, and have even been toying around with partial privatization of the NHS. The entire campaign of the 'better together' side has been run on the basis of fear and threats, basically claiming Scotland is too weak and incompetent to run its affairs, and the economy would collapse if they separate. Obviously there is uncertainty in the future, but striking such a condescending tone was a big mistake. Only with the polls closing to around 50-50 in the last few days did the Westminster establishment actually try and engage Scotland, and bribe them with extra powers such as increased devolution. I think the higher turnout is, the better for the Yes side, and the less representative pre-voting polls will prove to have been. I predict a Yes win, something like 55%-60% in favour. Originally the SNP and scots would probably have accepted devolution max, and more powers, but the refusal to consider these options until the polls were around 50-50 and the negative tone of the NO side, lead me to believe they will go for FREEEEEDOM.

The max if he's guilty of culpable homicide is 15 years from what I've read.

Sorry to sound like a dick, but couldn't this discussion be confined to an Israel or Gaza conflict thread? _____ For those interested in following the events regarding the Yezidi's I would recommend rudaw English news, a Kurdistan based news organization. The most extensive coverage and up to date news regarding Iraqi/Kurdish affairs that I have found. http://rudaw.net/english

Solution to what, the realities of geopolitics? You need to define the problem before moving forward to problem solving and solutions. Frankly many of us in this thread have fundamental disagreements about the causes, and dangers posed by the Ukraine crisis and Russia. @Rue If Putin invades Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Finland the paradigm will have shifted, however I do not believe any of these events are remotely likely. My opinion is that advocating for war against Russia based on it's actions in Ukraine is simply not in Canada's, or the West's interests. In fact I think its practically the height of insanity. If people feel so passionate about stopping Putin through military force I would much rather they go join the Ukrainian volunteer regiments than advocate to send my fellow Canadians to their deaths. Canada has nothing to gain, and much to lose.

You think Putin is going to invade Europe, start a world war, and genocide millions of civilians? Get a grip, you're hysterical. The only way that there will be a major conflict like you advocate is if politicians start to believe the idiotic mantra that 'The only way to stop Putin is with military force'. If you want to volunteer to go die over some Russian borderland in Eastern Ukraine, or South Ossetia, or Chechnya there's not much stopping you.

Cease fire appears to have collapsed.

While I don't have a big objection with Canada contributing against ISIS (say compared to our action in Libya), what vital national security interest is threatened? That is pretty much the most vital of all the criteria Big Guy listed.

How many Canadians have joined ISIS? Do you have a statistic? As far as I can see the number is insignificant.

The west doesn't conduct foreign policy based on any of these platonic ideals. They are just used in the PR campaign to justify whatever action we take.

The 'buntoss' in Mali led to a few thousand deaths and over 300k displaced people, and the seizure of literally half the country's land mass by radical Islamists before France intervened. Small scale affair compared to other wars sure, but not insignificant by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly more significant than any state sponsored terrorism coming out of Libya under Gaddafi. The only rational explanation I can see of your statement is that exporting terrorism just mean to the west, and its OK if they kill and terrorize Africans and Arabs? Otherwise how can you possibly claim that there is less terrorism coming out of Libya post-Gaddafi. The suggestion the amount of support for jihadis from Canada and the UK (The west) is remotely similar to that from post-war Libya is not even remotely true. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world/africa/in-a-turnabout-syria-rebels-get-libyan-weapons.html?pagewanted=all "Mr. Bukatef, the Libyan diplomat, said Libyan militias had been shipping weapons to Syrian rebels for more than a year. “They collect the weapons, and when they have enough they send it,” he said. “The Libyan government is not involved, but it does not really matter.” [snip] And most of the weapons have been relatively light, including rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, small arms ammunition and mortar rounds. But the Libyan influx appears to account for at least a portion of the antitank weapons seen in the conflict this spring, including Belgian-made projectiles for M40 recoilless rifles and some of the Russian-made Konkurs-M guided missiles that have been destroying Syrian tanks in recent months. Syrian rebels, working with Qatari backers and the Turkish government, have developed a system for acquiring and distributing Libya’s excess stock, Syrian activists and rebels said."

Harper would be glad to jump aboard any 'Coalition' of western nations, whatever the target is. Hell, probably all our politicians are tempted by the opportunity to look like a strong, decisive, and victorious leader. They are all so self serving and worried about the next election cycle that I wonder what the actual discussions about going to war sound like.

Huh? The nation, and all its former military equipment is now controlled either by Islamic fundamentalists or tribal (often Islamic) warlords. Islamic militants and weapons from Libya were behind the Northern Mali conflict, and they were routing the Mali army before France intervened. There is also a documented pipeline of jihadi's and weapons to Syria. It's not a small victory, its a massive reverse in the struggle against fundamentalist terrorism and aggression.

This might have been the situation a year ago, but it is not now. Turkey has great economic benefit from a growing Kurdistan, lots of $$$ to be made piping Kurdish oil, especially now they posses the kirkuk fields. AKP has signaled they have no problem with an independent Kurdistan, heck they are even moving towards a federal model for the kurds within turkey. Iran was the first to provide aid to the Kurds, per Barzani so I don't think they will kick up much of a fuss as long as the KRG respects Iranian territorial integrity, which they will.

ISIS is an enigma of sorts. They are obviously brutal, uncompromising militants, capable of gross crimes against humanity. However they are also well organized, well financed, and well supplied fighters. Their logistical networks extend into many western countries, with their manpower and finance coming mainly, but not only from the jihadi hotspots (chechnya, iraq, afghanistan, libya, egypt, turkey, gulf states) but also from NA and EUR. They have been fighting not only against the Iraqi army, and Syrian army, but have been devouring Al-nusra and other jihadi groups, with the same sort of mentality they show to religious minorities (convert from al-nusra to isis or die). Western powers have had a mild response to the rise of IS, contrast Libya's 14,202 strike sorties with the ~100 undertaken against ISIS to date. We practically left them alone until they seized Mosul Dam and were pushing into Kurdistan. This is despite the fact they are operating with significant amounts of US military kit seized from Iraq, or seized from wherever they ended up after being given to 'moderates' in Syria. Since the Yazidi massacre we have moved to arm the Kurds and provided humanitarian aid, but really, not that much more. Obviously there is resistance in the west against more middle eastern military adventures, so it's possible this is purely politics. Even so, Obama claiming the US had 'no strategy' to deal with ISIS two months after they seized Mosul, and months after they had existed as a serious force in Syria was perplexing. So what is ISIS. A cog in a trans-national plot to keep the Arab world in continual turmoil and violence? A way to suck all the radical jihadi's out of western countries and drop them in Syria/Iraq? An attempt to draw Iran into a perpetual shia-sunni conflict by waging war against Shia/Iran backed Baghdad gov't? A resurgence of Baathist party officials and Sunnis dis-affected by the Shia led iraqi government? A true jihadi movement for a caliphate, against the western system of nation states? A western tool to be used against Al-qaeda and Al-Assad? Frankly I don't think any of us know what the truth is. Weird crap like John McCain potentially meeting with Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi months ago keeps me suspicious. http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/cnn_screenshot_johnmccain_speaking_with_isis_chief_abu_bakr_al-baghdadi.jpg http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/john_mccain_with_isis_chief_abu_bakr_al-baghdadi_n_terrorist_muahmmad_noor.jpg I mean I'm not 100% sure that it is Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi, but it sure as hell looks like him. http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/iITw0MEY60U/0.jpg http://www.worldtribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pic_giant_071414_SM_Abu-Bakr-al-Baghdadi.jpg

It's a massive tragedy, there is no doubt about that.

Never claimed 'donbass' was the principal producer of oil and gas. Run the USGS statement through the English to Ukrainian translator a few more times and maybe you will get the actual meaning. Profitability and strategic value are simply not the same thing. Even if you think that coal is irrelevant due to the economics (its not), the industry of the region comes up with 25% of foreign currency receipts. Glad to see that once again you were able to change your position from 'no industry exists in donbass, all they give is salt and soil' to now simply 'donbass industry is obsolete' so quickly. If you don't want me to attack your source, link to the scientific reports themselves, or some journal or respected news media where the articles exist. Don't link me to some sort of photo blogging site based in Kiev.

The Yazidi kurds stuck on Mt. Sinjar are probably there because their homelands lie right in the ISIS territory, they cannot return to their homes unless ISIS is defeated, and even then I'm not sure if they would want to go and live as a minority back amongst the Sunni-arabs dominated region who supported ISIS the second they showed up and joined in the slaughter! The Kurds have experienced genocide at the hands of Sunni Arabs as recently as the anfal genocide under saddam, and historically they have always been slaughtered, invaded, and repressed by Sunni Arabs. Those remaining on the mountain and asking for weapons likely want to join in the fight alongside the Peshmerga. The other options for these Yazidi Kurds, ie relocation and settlement in safe lands is inhibited by economic stress, violence, and refugee overcrowding in the only areas they would be amongst their ethnic kin, Rojava Kurdistan (Syria), and the KRG.

Considering the government only signed the first agreements for exploration and development of shale resources in late 2013, I don't think its exactly surprising that in the midst of a coup and a civil war in the region they haven't begun building expensive shale gas extraction infrastructure. It isn't exactly a good business decision to invest in infrastructure in a war zone. With that said I am glad you were able to change your position from 'the fields are non-existant' to 'the economics of the eventual recovery of resources are not clear' so quickly (It only took 1 post, you didn't even bother to defend your original position!). The statement that the fields are not valuable because they are 'undiscovered' seems to show you don't have the strongest grasp of English language nuance. Perhaps Ukrainian, and not English is your first language? The whole point of the US geological survey was to determine the amounts of resources in the provinces studied. "This report was prepared as part of the World Energy Project of the U.S. Geological Survey . In the project, the world was divided into 8 regions and 937 geologic provinces. The provinces were ranked according to the discovered oil and gas volumes within each (U.S. Geological Survey World Energy Assessment Team, 2000). Subsequently , 76 “priority” provinces (exclusive of the U.S. and chosen for their high rank) and 26 “boutique” provinces (exclusive of the U.S. and chosen for their anticipated petroleum richness or special regional eco­nomic importance) were selected for appraisal of oil and gas resources. The petroleum geology of these priority and boutique provinces is described in this series of reports. The purpose of the World Energy Project is to aid in assess­ing the quantities of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids that have a potential to be added to reserves during the next 30 years. These estimated resources are in undiscovered fields whose sizes exceed the stated minimum-field-size cutoff value for an assess­ment unit (variable, but at least 1 million barrels of oil equivalent), or they are reserve growth of fields already discovered." Sure the Dnieper-donets field extends all the way to the Belorussian border, in fact if you read my post it delineated the field. However the field also extends into both Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts. There are some maps in the USGS report (http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/b2201-e.pdf page 6) as well as here (http://images.energy365dino.co.uk/standard/122034_60646e59c9cd4f95898c.jpg) which show shale resources in Lugansk Oblast, as well as in the upper half of Donetsk oblast. The experts disagree with your opinion that donbass coal and the manufactured products it supports are not a strategic resource "Even if parts of the industry are dependent on subsidies, the eastern Ukrainian export products represent an important source of income for the government in Kyiv. This is all the more important as Ukraine is virtually bankrupt - and therefore increasingly dependent on international donors. "If separatist movements succeed, Kyiv would completely collapse in the risk assessment of the money markets because the country would lose so many resources," Ukraine expert Ewald Böhlke said (http://www.dw.de/the-significance-of-the-donbas/a-17567049). Maybe you can find an expert from photoukraine.com who disagrees. If you want to be taken seriously on this topic you might want to try and find a better source, as yours is laughable. The site appears to have a total of 3 facebook likes, 36 google +1's, and no link with any official body whatsoever. For all I know you made this site yourself. http://www.photoukraine.com/ Owner Name Andrey Ivchenko Email @novadesign.kiev.ua Address Prospekt Lesnoy, 5, kv. 128 Kiev 02166, UKRAINE I didn't ever plan on making some big argument about the strategic value of eastern resources, because as I stated before I believe there are a confluence of reasons why the UKR central government seems to be willing to throw the country down the toilet to retain control over the eastern oblasts. However when I see your extreme misrepresentations and outright lies I can't help myself. 'Salt and soil'

Shear propaganda? As opposed to some sort of Axial or Torsional propaganda? You bring nothing to the discussion outside of aggressive bluster. Here s a US geological survey report about the 'non-existent' Dnieper-donets gas fields. http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/ some money-quotes "The Dnieper-Donets basin is almost entirely in Ukraine, and it is the principal producer of hydrocarbons in that country. A small southeastern part of the basin is in Russia. The basin is bounded by the Voronezh high of the Russian craton to the northeast and by the Ukrainian shield to the southwest." "A single total petroleum system encompassing the entire sedimentary succession is identified in the Dnieper-Donets basin. Discovered reserves of the system are 1.6 billion barrels of oil and 59 trillion cubic feet of gas." "the basin is ranked 36th among 102 world provinces that were designated for appraisal of undiscovered oil and gas resources by the US geological survey" The fact that coal is subsidized has nothing to do with its strategic importance as an energy resource, and its strategic importance in regards to things such as steel production. In fact its completely irrelevant to everything I wrote. I hope your apology for calling me a poster of propaganda will be forthcoming?

The East contains the majority of Ukraines' coal (Donets Basin) as well as a considerable amount of one of Ukraines two major oil & gas fields, the dnieper-donetsk gas field. The east is further heavily industrialized, mainly with steel and other metallurgical industries. The Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts accounted for around 25% of the total foreign currency receipts of Ukraine (http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/boris-danik-ukraines-war-of-independence-351112.html , http://mondediplo.com/2014/04/03ukraine). A huge percentage of the industrial production in the east (mainly production of coal/iron/steel and derivative products) is exported to western Russian manufacturing, for example Rostov-on-don is a center of helicopter and farm equipment manufacturing. Ukraine was the #14 producer of coal in the world in 2012, #29 in Natural gas and #51 in oil production. (http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=up). Gas and oil production was expected to increase with exploitation of previously untouched shale reserves, " The former Soviet republic has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet (1.2 trillion cubic metres), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, behind France and Norway." In 2013 Ukraine signed contracts with shell and chevron for the development of shale gas, "Shell will develop the Yuzivska area, in eastern Donetsk and Kharkiv regions, while Chevron will explore the Olesska area in the western region of Lviv." ((http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/ukraine-gas-shale-idUSL5E8GGAJY20120516)) So while its true that these regions are not exactly swimming in riches (GDP per capita of around 4-5k nominal usd, probably decently higher (PPP)GDP but I am too lazy to look into this), they posses some strategically important resources and industries, of which Russia, the West, and of course Ukrainians themselves desire control over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GDP_per_capita Now I'm not sure that strategic economic thinking is solely behind this, although I believe they clearly represent a major influence. The post feb coup government already lost Crimea, the loss of further territories to 'Russia' is probably not acceptable politically, especially due to Ukraine's posturing of the rebels as Russian invaders. Accepting federalization or outright independence would go directly counter to their nationalistic Ukranian ideology. It's also possible either Ukraine under-estimated the Russian insurgents, and the lengths Russia would back them, or they over-estimated the amount of support they would get from the West/EU, and expected a easy victory. Of course with the complexity and global reach of this conflict it's possible this analysis misses the mark.

The sad thing is the massive hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of Western politicians and media seems completely unnoticed by vast swathes of the population, especially in the US.

Would just like to caution that the Kyiv post is quite probably the most pro-central Ukrainian gov't news site on the planet. Personally I consider the organization completely biased, to the same level as many consider RT or Pravda to be biased in favor of Russia. If you check in on the Kyiv post a few times the bias will likely be visible even from their headlines (the top5 stories on the front page of the website). Obviously I don't really know what the situation on the ground is, but I believe there are some more accurate resources available to see the ongoing military action. http://militarymaps.info/ http://liveuamap.com/ The situation around Luhansk certainly seems to be reaching a critical stage, however over the last week or so a lot of ground was actually recovered in the southern rebel territories. A week ago the Ukrainian army was threatening to cut off Donetsk completely as their forces occupied shakhtarsk and were even able to cut off the road link briefly at Krasnyi Luch. It was right around this time a few senior figures in the Novorussian seps/gov't resigned which at the time I took as a signal of the impending collapse of Novorussia. As the fighting went on, the separatists militia's were able to recover this territory and launch counter offensives, which have apparently managed to create a second 'cauldron' encirclement up against the Russian border of at least some Ukrainian forces. The 'first' cauldron is what led to those mass defections of Ukrainian troops across into Russia a few weeks back, along with some of the heaviest fighting. All that aside, the scale of the humanitarian crisis in east Ukraine is certainly growing every day. It's a disgusting tactic to simply destroy the power, water and other infrastructure for millions of people, indiscriminately shell civilian towns, cities, and even refugees fleeing. The Ukrainian army was even toying with a major environmental disaster around two weeks ago when they were shelling a large chemical plant in the east ( )Here is an extensive video record of the atrocities committed against the East. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e3e_1408400082 It's rather sad to think how many lives and how much of the wealth and infrastructure of this land could have been saved if not for the extremist position taken by the Kyiv Gov't. If they had attempted some sort of rapprochement, diplomacy or compromise when the eastern regions protested and eventually declared independence this could have all been avoided. Let's not forget that the ethnic Russians did have serious issues with the new kyiv government, and were protesting the February coup long before this conflict got hot (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e45_1408225130). Instead they seem to be aiming for some sort of supreme victory in which they annihilate the rebel forces, and a good chunk of the Russian population to boot. I struggle to see how the kyiv government expects to reconcile with these people and include them in the future. I also really struggle to see how Ukraine recovers from this as a whole, they were already virtually bankrupt before this whole crisis began, and now have seen a massive expenditure on the military, a massive loss of infrastructure, life, massively increased energy prices from Russia (I'm not 100% sure but they might be totally cut off due to their debt to Gazprom at this point), loss of trade with Russia (The largest export market and biggest trading partner). Is the West/EU really willing to foot the bill for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Ukraine? I seriously doubt it, which is truly sad for all Ukrainians, the final outcomes of the conflict pretty much range from very bad to disastrous at this point for combatants and civilians on both sides. To sum it all up, this insane war in a European country no less leaves me feeling disgusted and depressed. Whether political ideology or some more macabre geopolitical play by outside forces is most to blame, the country is at civil war, the social fabric is heavily damaged, and the economy is going to tank even more than it already was. The people pulling the strings have effectively ruined the country. _____ Sort of a separate though When I come across stories like Joe Biden's son being put on the board of the largest private gas company in Ukraine after the February coup, at a time when there are large natural gas fields currently being fought over in the east, and Joe Biden HIMSELF is advising and TELEPHONING with the kyiv leadership and Poroshenko himself ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/16/readout-vice-presidents-call-ukrainian-president-petro-poroshenko) (http://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-joes-son-ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-2014-5) it is impossible to deny there is disaster-capitalism/shock doctrine at play here by the USA. Oh by the way, Poroshenko finally managed to ram through legislation allowing sale of 49% of State gas and oil assets, don't be surprised if a lot of these end up with Biden's company (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/08/14/latest-ukraine-gas-deal-will-irk-russians/).

The US helps to arms and train the Syrian Rebels, with allies Turkey and Jordan aiding in logistics. The US bombs the Iraqi rebels and provides arms to the Kurds and central Iraqi Government against ISIS, who are armed with heavy American weapons seized from the Iraqi Army. The problem is ISIS includes both the Syrian Rebels and Iraqi Rebels.

My objection to Canadian interference in Libya, Ukraine, and Afghanistan are related to the Arctic in the context of the growing tension escalation between the Western Power Bloc of Nato/EU and Russia. Our heavy involvement in these conflicts has enshrined Canada as one of the stronger adherents and contributors to NATO doctrine of interventionism and expansion. In the current escalations of tensions, Canada has been at the very forefront along with the USA, Germany, UK, and a few other nations. It is likely that Canada, along with these countries will experience the harshest retaliations, or at very least the greatest degradation of relations. Even if we assume that Canada must sanction Russia to show solidarity with USA/EU, I would much prefer if our leadership was not so vocal, and so aggressive towards the Russians (To the extent of providing military aid to the Ukrainians, as well as potential economic aid). I believe that in the future it will be beneficial to keep cordial relations with the Russians, as relying on NATO's (Basically the Americans) military power to enforce our claims on Arctic Energy Resources, is in my opinion less beneficial than co-operation and negotiated agreement on them. Right now there is a significant % of the worlds undiscovered and unexplored oil and gas in the Arctic, aligning our nation in direct opposition to the Russians, with whom we will vie for control of these resources seems unwise to me. Especially considering their much greater military and arctic naval capabilities. Obviously it's hard to see what the long term effects of the current escalations will be right now, but I believe the government is making very significant decisions with the potential for massive long term (economic and political) ramifications without much of a public debate. There is a lot at stake here, and I don't believe the public is being well enough informed by media or government. Regarding Libya/Afghanistan/Ukraine it was a figure of speech to indicate that our interventions in these countries have led to instability suffering and poverty within those three nations which would not have existed if NATO had not become involved. Each of these operations must be studied on its merits individually, as well as how they fit into the overlying geopolitical matrix to really evaluate the legitimacy and benefits/negative outcomes of each. In that sense I believe that NATO intervention in Afghanistan had some merits, and may result in some long term benefits, however I am much more pessimistic about Libya and the Ukraine. I touched on this when I linked to this piece (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/03/libya-freedom-now-flee-new-chaos), our intervention in Libya especially has had catastrophic humanitarian effects, as we are witnessing the collapse of Libyan society at the behest of feuding warlords/Islamist and Corporate western Interests. Libya is transforming from one of the most progressive, wealthy, and prosperous African countries into a non functional society and economy. Nato's 26,500 air sorties in support of the rebels directly supported this outcome, It's likely the government would have been able to suppress the rebels without NATO intervention. When considering Libya before and after, our intervention and overthrow of Gaddafi constitutes a crime against humanity in my opinion. The rebels we supported in Libya are very similar to those who have destroyed Syria, and commit massacres, genocide of minorities, and general brutality. The Americans even support those Syrian rebels with training and military equipment as well. I believe ISIS should be eradicated by a combined military effort. The USA especially bears the blame for their dominance of the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq through their invasion and destabilization of the region, and they should lead the military operation to clean up their own mess and eradicate ISIS as much as possible. ISIS is the worst of the worst, true terrorists, they lack any humanity and need to be stopped. The fact they are operating with so much US equipment (Expensive stuff like Tanks, Howitzers, Small Arms, Anti-Tank Missile systems, Manpad Systems, APC's) and training is a testament to how messed up US foreign policy is. The "Free Syrian Army" has ceased to exist in reality, with even Al Nursa, and other jihadi groups pledging allegiance to ISIS. The US is now in an effective alliance with Iran and the Assad Government to protect the Yezidis and Kurds against a force that would not exist if they had just left Saddam alone, or had managed the reconstruction of Iraq better. Other American Allies like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey seem to be heavily involved in the logistics and financing of ISIS. It's total chaos and very difficult to try and discern exactly whose interests are being served, and what the end game is. Hamas also is clearly not benefiting the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, their policy of military aggression against an overwhelmingly more powerful nation simply does not work. Fatah in the West Bank is doing a lot better for the Palestinians any way you look at it. This is another complex and complicated issue however, somewhat tangential to the thread topic so I will leave it aside for a later discussion. I believe the current Kiev Government, along with their support from NATO and the EU is the biggest obstacle to the normalization of Ukranian/Russian relations, and has been the biggest single force behind the current deterioration of relations we have seen. The maidan revolution was the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych's government in February 2014 following the Euromaidan protests. If I had to guess who shot down MH17, I would guess it was the pro-Russian rebels, however I will wait until the results of the investigation. I believe the most likely scenario is they either targeted the Ukrainian Su-25 fighter in the Area of MH17, or they believed it was some sort of military transport airplane, potentially an Antonov. It's possible they received the BUK AA system from Russia, but its also plausible they were able to raid Ukrainian military depots. Using looted equipment would actually explain why the rebels were unable to use proper targeting radars which would have picked up the civilian transponder in MH17, as potentially they do not have the required (2 radar systems accompany and work with each BUK missle system) radars or training/operators for effective operation. Without the appropriate radars to differentiate targets, and skilled operators to use them, these BUK systems will fire at any plane in the sky they set their targets on. The fact is the OSCE has stated there is no evidence of Russia providing military support for the pro-russian rebels, or of Russian soldiers crossing into the Ukraine. On the other hand, we in the west openly give financial and military support to the Kiev government. With that said, the civilian deaths in MH17 represent a significant minority of the civilian casualties in the conflict overall. Even if you place the blame of MH17 solely on the rebels (The Ukrainians at least bear the responsibility for the bad decision to route planes over a war zone with active use of heavy SAM systems) the Government forces are almost definitely to blame for the majority of total civilian deaths caused from this conflict. The Government forces have been bombarding the breakaway regions virtually indiscriminately. Here is some first hand evidence. Australian National TV report -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ea9AD3iHHc Evidence of Civillian Tageting (Warning Dead bodies) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=97f_1401379896 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=02b_1401135910 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ba_1401717988 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0db_1399635819 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=85e_1405943816 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7c4_1404733056 There is loads more evidence, that took around 5 min to gather. Aftermath of massacre of Pro-Russian Protestors in Odessa http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f0f_1399119582 Even the Original Maidan Protestors were outfitted with Guns/Molotovs/Bats/Other weapons. It was hardly a peaceful protest or revolution. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=34e_1392746107