that's why your rights must end the very moment they violate other's rights,
and almost must attempt to define people's rights taking into account other people's right.
Jehova's witness just don't have the right to deny blood related medicine to their children, and they should be tried if they do that

don't know why I wrote "and almost must" it should be "and one must"

I agree that one's rights need to be balanced with one's responsibility to others.

Unbelievable how fast this thread went from a discussion of Russia's intervention and how it would effect.

First of all, BaldOldGuy, if you believe Islam is plain bad because some part of the religions written book is plain bad, than you must believe the same about Christianity. Point is, every religion has it dark sides. You cannot use your religion as a background to criticize other religions for eventual shortcomings or fanaticism.

To answer on yassem's questions, from a European small-state citizen view:

1) No we are not returning - we have been in cold war politics for a while now. Just look at how many times Russia have been making flights near the boarders of Scandinavia, testing the defense of this region.
And not surprising, nearly every agreement about the ending of the cold and the EU/ NATO between Russia and some of the great powers of the west have been broken. The conflict in Ukraine wasn't triggered by Russian intervention, that only happened later as the conflict evolved. The conflict was triggered by western support against the old regime. Had EU supported the old regime when it asked for help with it gas-debts towards Russia, things would have been very different.

2) No, not at the moment. It might evolve later on, but at the moment there is no reason to pull threads between Afghanistan in the Soviet Era and the Syrian Conflict. First of all because Russia is actually supporting the regime at being not trying to make a new one. This means they can at first hope not to have foot soldiers on the ground much the same as USA's situation in Iraq. Going from that line of thought, you can actually compare the USA-Iraq situation to the Russia-Syria situation. Furthermore coming from international law, Russia is actually only helping a sovereign state in need. If you want to, you can see Syria as a state that is trying to protect it's citizens. I think it sometime would be advisable to follow international law instead of what sometime seems as USA's right here and right now moral situation. If one is to think about the whole Syrian Civil War and Russia's part therein it have only acted as anyone could have predicted - actually maybe a bit better since it was a key ingredient in the destruction of the Syrian Armys chemical weapons. American and European civilians and media should know better than portray Russia as an enemy just because they assist an regime that they have assisted for a long, long period. If that is all that needs to put someone as the enemy of the west, then the west with USA in the lead are our enemy too - since USA helps nearly every other regime in the Mideastern region from Egypt to Bahrain. It's simply double standards - one of the reasons the Russians frown at western reactions.
The end result is likely to be that the west will back down on the situation within Syria and let Russia and Syria defeat first the moderate Syrians then ISIS. If we wanted to have the end result different, we should have done something very different years ago. So no, it's not the Afghan-Soviet War all over again - it's just the Syrian Civil War. There really ain't any possible comparisons under the Cold War, simply because we do not have a bipolar power structure anymore. It is both impossible to find some situation of comparison and very dangerous - because such comparisons always have a purpose to mislead the public opinion of the actual situation at hand.
So, it's just the Syrian Civil War, nothing more, nothing less.

3)
I think I have argumented a bit for this in the second answer. But to summarize, no it is not Russia who is saying "fuck the world" and Germany is not weak because it doesn't want to reciprocate. If you look at world politics like a arena for just fighting and rise of hostilities than yes, but then you are bound to end in war on war or even worse world wars. This is why the US and the rest of NATO should follow it's own rules and not intervene in anything unless it has the mandate of a sovereign power attacked by Syria or a mandate from the UN saying that Syria is not able to defend it's citizens. If we don't follow our own rules, then why should Russia or China?
You really outta try to look this from Russia's POV. For one, it is the NATO/EU who have broken former agreements in the whole former Eastblock by taking in candidates bordering Russia. Two, even when Russia looked past this, we kept on being aggressive, thinking "now's the chance, we can move the front to Russia's own border. There's a reason why Russians feel unsure in what the west is doing. They feel that it reminds them of Nazi Germany expansion before Operation Barbarossa. And now we also wanted to take Ukraine away from them. Try to imagine a situation where China is trying to get Mexico or Canada as they military and trade partners and you might get the feeling Russians is sitting with.

"Try to imagine a situation where China is trying to get Mexico or Canada as they military and trade partners" Cuba turning communist anyone?

@Middel Didn't get clear how do "we have been in cold war politics for a while now" and "There really ain't any possible comparisons under the Cold War, simply because we do not have a bipolar power structure anymore" live together in the same post

" agree with BOG in one regard: Islam has religion and law deeply intertwined. Even though most Muslims don't support the hardest of hard core Sharia, some do, and some always will.

That's the fear: Every religion does this to some degree, so practitioners know what the other side is capable of because they too are capable of the same."

I'd just like to point out something i came across in my research for this thread. Inside Saudi Arabia, (you know the big US ally and source of Wahhabi Jihadists) after the September 11th attacks, there was a lot of friction, who really ruled Saudi Arabia was called into question. Was it the religious authorities/scholars or was it the monarchy in the form of the House of Saud?

(src: wikipedia) "It was declared that it has always been the role of executive rulers in Islamic history to exercise power and the job of the religious scholars to advise, never to govern."

@Diplomat: "Really? I have freedom of thought, of religion, to have sex with people of the same gender, to vote (actually, I don't but that is a long story) and a number of other things. I am unclear at whose expense I have these things. "

Your right to vote came at the expense of the aristocrats who held power before ~1830s/40s. The ability of the upper class to rule over lesser people was massively eroded with (among other things) the ending of feudalism (see: the 1848 revolutions, and the French revolution).

Oh, but yes, those rights of feudal monarchs came at the expense of someone else... (guess i've been reading a lot of european history recently... Ah Napoleon, why you have to invade Russia... it never ends well.)

"This is why the US and the rest of NATO should follow it's own rules and not intervene in anything unless it has the mandate of a sovereign power attacked by Syria or a mandate from the UN saying that Syria is not able to defend it's citizens."

So the problem here is the UN system is patently broken. The number of votes which are everyone but the US and Israel basically show that the UN is powerless unless the US backs a decision.

The other problem is who you recognise as sovereign in the first place. (those who are allowed into the UN).

Take Kosovo: "Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, Kosovo was placed under the administration of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo in 1999" - who do you listen to if Kosovan's are not being protected? Do you rely on the broken security council mechanism? Or do you listen to their Serbian neighbour's claims of sovereignty?

And this is not an isolated example, take Taiwan, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Somaliland, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, or Abkhazia.

Further there are those anarchists who deny all claims to sovereignty, except over one's own body.

In reality who your nation agrees with at any given time probably relies more on the real-politik nature of power. (and i think you should play some diplomacy if you want to see how this works out...)

Had I been born 150 years earlier, as an English man, I would still have had freedom of religion, thought, speech, etc. and I am not sure that homosexuality was a crime then either. As a middle class professional I may be somewhat richer now vis a vis the aristocracy but (but I am not sure of that).

I accept that my theoretical predecessor was more fortunate than most at the time those who have gained freedoms since have not taken those freedoms from anyone else. The aristocracy has the same freedoms as the rest of us.

@Diplomat61

Freedom of Religion doesn't exist, for a start. Freedom of Religion As Long As You Play Nice does, but, quite rightly, there isn't total liberty with religion because hate speech and sectarianism are the results.

Freedom of sexual taste isn't a liberty in the first place. The state should have no role in the bedroom; and for most of history... it didn't.

Freedom of thought isn't a liberty either. Please enlighten me how that could be taken away. This is not 1984.

Universal suffrage is the only valid liberty there, and most democratic models are exceedingly un-democratic anyway.

If you go by the main 'Liberties', you get the following:

Freedom of Speech. Non-existent in its total form; mainly positive; but has at various times permitted homophobia, racism, sexism, and still doesn't prevent these entirely.

Freedom of the Press. Also non-existent in its total form; can put security at risk, an leads to things such as the phone hacking scandals here.

Freedom of Information. [Hey, also not total liberty!]. A positive one for keeping governments in check, but as the government is the one deciding what to release or not in answer to questions; it's fairly dodgy still.

Freedom of Assembly. In moderation; this is great for keeping businesses in check; but taken too far, you get crippling general strikes by unions beholden to a certain elite that destroy the economy and attack democracy

Right to Privacy - Something that's being constantly knocked back in the name of counter-terrorism; and it's debatable whether this truly exists anymore.

Right to equal treatment under the law - Well, hey, that's equality.

Middlefart -“First of all, BaldOldGuy, if you believe Islam is plain bad because some part of the religions written book is plain bad, than you must believe the same about Christianity.” No, I will not concede that point. Please point to the verses in the New Testament that are the equivalent of the verses I quoted from the Koran, which calls for Christians to behead or force submission of non-believers. Or conduct other evil acts. Like the ones these guy quote: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5093.htm There are none.
“Point is, every religion has it dark sides. You cannot use your religion as a background to criticize other religions for eventual shortcomings or fanaticism.” Yes every religion has its dark side. But the difference is that the Koran codifies beheadings. There are more verses in the Koran that instruct followers how to treat slaves than there are to pray 5 times a day. There is nothing in the New Testament or Catechism that tells priests to bugger little boys. The “fanatics” are simply following the words of the Koran. I am using the Koran to point out the evil it contains.

So, in conclusion, the mindless pursuit of 'Liberty' and 'Freedom' above all else is counter-productive and harmful for others.

They should not be driving forces.

HR, what a narrow view of freedoms you have. Universal suffrage is the only valid liberty? The UN Declaration on Human Rights covers a lot more than that.

Things that should be liberties become pretty obvious when they are denied. As you surely know religious freedom is limited in some countries (e.g. China, Malaysia if born to a Muslim family). You may also know that homosexual acts will get you the death penalty in Uganda at the moment. If you don't understand how freedom of thought is restricted in '1984' then perhaps you should read it again.

@Middlefart:

1) "And not surprising, nearly every agreement about the ending of the cold and the EU/ NATO between Russia and some of the great powers of the west have been broken."

Which agreements? Citation needed.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

No signed agreements were broken. Perhaps a gentleman's agreement or handshake was broken, but no sovereign nations or military alliances made any agreements. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many new nations became free again and chose to ally with NATO and western Europe.

2) "If you want to, you can see Syria as a state that is trying to protect it's citizens."

If what Syria is doing is considered "protecting it's citizens", I think Syria needs to reflect on what it isn't doing. Bashar al-Assad more or less abandoned the tribes in the north and east which were not his favorites because he only wanted to protect himself and Damascus. That's not a good way to govern an entire country.

"American and European civilians and media should know better than portray Russia as an enemy just because they assist an regime that they have assisted for a long, long period."

Many people don't understand the Syria/Soviet and now Syria/Russia relationship. Obama did make serious mistakes when talking about "red lines in Syria" with respect to Assad. He also talked many times about "not interfering with other legitimate governments" which caused much confusion. Talking out both sides of his mouth meant he could not back up his threats with military force, whether we wanted to spend more blood and treasure or not.

I wish we could only discount that conflict as the Syrian Civil War, but ISIS claims they want to create a global caliphate, not just one in the Levant.

3) "This is why the US and the rest of NATO should follow it's own rules and not intervene in anything unless it has the mandate of a sovereign power attacked by Syria or a mandate from the UN saying that Syria is not able to defend it's citizens."

This is exactly what is happening. Unfortunately, the UN hasn't yet given such a mandate despite the Syrian refugee crisis. Well over 4 million of the 18 million Syrians have fled their homes. If this doesn't indicate Syria is unable and unwilling to defends it's citizens, then I don't know what would.

The United States only has rhetoric against Syria because they recognize that Russia is a major ally of Syria. Keep in mind it was Russia and China who vetoed UN sanctions against the Assad regime, not the west.

Universal Suffrage is the only one you listed that's actually in existence.

Freedom of Religion doesn't full exist. But, I will accept that it's generally a positive thing when controlled. Again, total freedom of religion leads to hate speech, cults, and sectarianism, though. Not good.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is a load of namby pamby that states only give lip service to and follow when convenient.

any right should be 'nonabusing right'
any freedom should be 'educated freedom'

Sure. But compared to Equality (Of opportunity. Equality of outcome doesn't exist; that's just feudalism rebadged with a rich political elite), which is something that can always be improved and should always be worked toward getting greater equality.

Working toward greater liberties as if they're some sort of be all and end all and we must have total freedom is just dumb.

HR "Universal Suffrage is the only one you listed that's actually in existence." Except in Saudi Arabia, Brunei and the U.A.E.

Saudi women are supposed to get the vote in municipal elections, but they still will not be able to drive themselves to the polling place.

Well, I guess their expat drivers will have to do it for them.

Freedom of religion exists in the United States. Not sure about anywhere else, but the freedom to practice whatever religion one desires is representative of the literal thousands of religions that have sprung out of the mud in this country. There are always gonna be bad eggs, but that doesn't make it right to infringe upon another's beliefs, and it's unenforcible, similarly to what you said about freedom of thought, whatever the hell that even meant.

Obviously, there are lines to everything, but grouping hate speech and "cults" - a word that, in my opinion, doesn't mean anything in this country, where every single religious sect was at one point nothing more than a cult - together and branding them both as equally bad is pretty tasteless.

@BOG ... doesn't that sound awfully similar to people in the US who have the right to vote but can't get off work in time to get to the polling place before it closes?

To be frank; giving democracy to those regions hasn't worked out so well in Egypt & Libya now, has it? It doesn't always work so well.

So well as the fantastic FPTP two party states most of us live in.

Worked out OK for Tunisia, so far.

@HR: "Working toward greater liberties as if they're some sort of be all and end all and we must have total freedom is just dumb."

I agree with this statement.

Consider the following questions:

1. If you could only have (a) clean drinking water OR (b) a free press, but not both, which would you choose?
2. If you could only have (a) electricity OR (b) representative democracy, which do you want?
3. If you could have (a) adequate clothing and shelter, OR (b) free trade, which is it to be?

During this century western military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and other places has attempted to impose (b), often at the cost of risking (a). Many people in Syria can now no longer rely on having (a) or (b).

Those things aren't exclusive, Jamiet, by any means, but I agree in sentiment.

bosox "@BOG ... doesn't that sound awfully similar to people in the US who have the right to vote but can't get off work in time to get to the polling place before it closes?"
Not at all. Every state has absentee ballots. Many states have early voting. Everyone gets a lunch break. Most polling places are open 12 hours. So even if you work 7-7 you still have opportunities. And employers most always are accommodating for voting. That said, I would prefer a Saturday voting day.

Those are bad false dichotomies there, jamiet. Bad, bad bad.

Democracy does not just happen overnight. It takes time for the knowledge and mechanisms to take root and flourish. It might not look like yours, or work the way you think it should, but that is irrelevant. It is not yours, or more, or anyones to "give it to them". Democracy belongs to the people, the constituents, for them to grow and develop as they see fit.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Churchill