Syria and the US's Motive
Comments
-
i don't really see that as passive aggressive ... i'm just responding to you calling me a hypocrite ... which in it of itself is lame ...mrussel1 said:
Is passive aggressive your specialty? The thread is seven pages deep and no, I didn't read it all nor did I read the Fuck Trudeau page. But on behalf of our service members, our military does thank you for contributing to our tax base. 20 or 40 bucks in annual dues to PJ.com, a few vaults or albums, maybe even a show or two. It all makes a difference in helping our Imperialist Empire run. No amount is too small.polaris_x said:
for the record ... there is a fuck trudeau or some semblance of it in the canadian politics thread ... but I'm guessing that matters not to you ...mrussel1 said:
I had no idea of the nationality of Polaris but being Canadian makes it even more hypocritical considering Canada's ongoing support of US policy objectives and the fact that the wars we deal with today were at least partially enabled by Versailles which Canada signed. But I guess if I go to Rush's forum or maybe Tragically Hip or even Nickelback, I'll see you two relentlessly criticize your government and say Canada is far worse than Russia. I'm sure of it.Drowned Out said:So you disagree..,,and your knee jerk is to tell the person to leave...I expect that of a true blue blooded nationalist righty, mr russel....seems even sillier when you can't say 'you dun like 'murica, then git the hell out!', because you know Polaris is Canadian. Instead you'd have him boycott the message board of an anti-war American band in protest. Cmon.
I admit I don't know much about his time in the military, his capture, and release...but...Considering how readily he supports sending American boys to the same (or worse) fates...and how readily he supports actions that will destroy an exponentially greater number of foreign lives.... I am 100% comfortable in saying FUCK JOHN MCCAIN. And fuck the US's colonial imperialism, and the yellow ribbon nationalism that enables it.
You can say Fuck McCain all you want if it makes you feel better or stronger. No worries. But as I said I'm drawing a distinction between his time as service man and his time as a Senator. It's not a difficult concept.
i mentioned that are our arms deal with the saudis makes canadians complicit in much of what is happening in the middle east but feel free to ignore the actual discussion points of this thread and go the typical route of someone who'd rather not engage in the actual crux of the conversation ...
i can see you've gone off the rails in this thread so have at it ... it's just too bad that as someone who supports the military - you are ok with your gov't sending these kids overseas to do immoral acts in the name of greed ... it's like GWB saying he supports the military and then cutting funding for kevlar vests and veteran benefits ...Post edited by polaris_x on0 -
prove it ... when pointed to all the incursions into latin america, middle east, asia ... the creation of terrorists groups like al qaeda and ISIL ... you ignore ... go ahead - prove that ANY country in this world has done more shit than the US ... just try ... you can't say it's categorically false when it isn't ... the only country that remotely comes close is the UK ... but it's definitely not Russia or USSR ...mrussel1 said:Where I have taken offense that frankly I have not let go to this point, were certain statements that nothing Russia has done in its past can ever compare to the criminal United States. If someone takes that view, then they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned because it's categorically false and absolutely devoid of any knowledge of Russia's history, particularly in the 20th century.
0 -
You still believe the US created a radical sect of Islam like Wahhabism, eh? Well that's quite a trick for the US gov't to go back in time and write some radical scripture so they can unleash it in the 21st century. Most impressive.polaris_x said:
prove it ... when pointed to all the incursions into latin america, middle east, asia ... the creation of terrorists groups like al qaeda and ISIL ... you ignore ... go ahead - prove that ANY country in this world has done more shit than the US ... just try ... you can't say it's categorically false when it isn't ... the only country that remotely comes close is the UK ... but it's definitely not Russia or USSR ...mrussel1 said:Where I have taken offense that frankly I have not let go to this point, were certain statements that nothing Russia has done in its past can ever compare to the criminal United States. If someone takes that view, then they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned because it's categorically false and absolutely devoid of any knowledge of Russia's history, particularly in the 20th century.
0 -
interesting you picked wahhabism which is primarily centred around saudi arabia which is a major US ally ... in any case - there are ultra conservative wings of almost every religion ...even buddhism ...mrussel1 said:
You still believe the US created a radical sect of Islam like Wahhabism, eh? Well that's quite a trick for the US gov't to go back in time and write some radical scripture so they can unleash it in the 21st century. Most impressive.polaris_x said:
prove it ... when pointed to all the incursions into latin america, middle east, asia ... the creation of terrorists groups like al qaeda and ISIL ... you ignore ... go ahead - prove that ANY country in this world has done more shit than the US ... just try ... you can't say it's categorically false when it isn't ... the only country that remotely comes close is the UK ... but it's definitely not Russia or USSR ...mrussel1 said:Where I have taken offense that frankly I have not let go to this point, were certain statements that nothing Russia has done in its past can ever compare to the criminal United States. If someone takes that view, then they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned because it's categorically false and absolutely devoid of any knowledge of Russia's history, particularly in the 20th century.
the issue here is how does something like this translate into a major terrorist network that requires arms and resources? ... who funds these groups? who arms them? ... and why? ... again - just looking at Syria now - you must know by now that the US has armed all the "rebel" groups that should be evident to most independent thinkers are actually terrorists ... arming them in the interests of overthrowing a non-secular gov't - something that is a supposed ideal of american values ... yet everywhere america has been in recent history in the middle east - we have less democracy and greater divisions among islamic faiths ...Post edited by polaris_x on0 -
The history of the middle east is clear. We don't have less democracy today. We don't have more democracy today. The middle east has been held together by strongmen going back to the end of the Ottoman's. Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria... what they have in common is rule by a dictator using brute force. Oppressing opposition groups, rigging votes, jailing and killing their political enemies. The forces unleashed by the overthrow of the dictators are simply the natural output of nearly a century of repression (preceded by Ottoman oppression). The US did not create these divisions in the 21st century. They have been there for centuries...polaris_x said:
interesting you picked wahhabism which is primarily centred around saudi arabia which is a major US ally ... in any case - there are ultra conservative wings of almost every religion ...even buddhism ...mrussel1 said:
You still believe the US created a radical sect of Islam like Wahhabism, eh? Well that's quite a trick for the US gov't to go back in time and write some radical scripture so they can unleash it in the 21st century. Most impressive.polaris_x said:
prove it ... when pointed to all the incursions into latin america, middle east, asia ... the creation of terrorists groups like al qaeda and ISIL ... you ignore ... go ahead - prove that ANY country in this world has done more shit than the US ... just try ... you can't say it's categorically false when it isn't ... the only country that remotely comes close is the UK ... but it's definitely not Russia or USSR ...mrussel1 said:Where I have taken offense that frankly I have not let go to this point, were certain statements that nothing Russia has done in its past can ever compare to the criminal United States. If someone takes that view, then they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned because it's categorically false and absolutely devoid of any knowledge of Russia's history, particularly in the 20th century.
the issue here is how does something like this translate into a major terrorist network that requires arms and resources? ... who funds these groups? who arms them? ... and why? ... again - just looking at Syria now - you must know by now that the US has armed all the "rebel" groups that should be evident to most independent thinkers are actually terrorists ... arming them in the interests of overthrowing a non-secular gov't - something that is a supposed ideal of american values ... yet everywhere america has been in recent history in the middle east - we have less democracy and greater divisions among islamic faiths ...0 -
so ... what are you saying!? ... Iran would be just as bad if you guys didn't overthrow mossadegh? ... you can't be serious!? ... israel would still be trouncing on the palestinians? ... iraq would still be a hotbed for terrorists!? ...mrussel1 said:
The history of the middle east is clear. We don't have less democracy today. We don't have more democracy today. The middle east has been held together by strongmen going back to the end of the Ottoman's. Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria... what they have in common is rule by a dictator using brute force. Oppressing opposition groups, rigging votes, jailing and killing their political enemies. The forces unleashed by the overthrow of the dictators are simply the natural output of nearly a century of repression (preceded by Ottoman oppression). The US did not create these divisions in the 21st century. They have been there for centuries...polaris_x said:
interesting you picked wahhabism which is primarily centred around saudi arabia which is a major US ally ... in any case - there are ultra conservative wings of almost every religion ...even buddhism ...mrussel1 said:
You still believe the US created a radical sect of Islam like Wahhabism, eh? Well that's quite a trick for the US gov't to go back in time and write some radical scripture so they can unleash it in the 21st century. Most impressive.polaris_x said:
prove it ... when pointed to all the incursions into latin america, middle east, asia ... the creation of terrorists groups like al qaeda and ISIL ... you ignore ... go ahead - prove that ANY country in this world has done more shit than the US ... just try ... you can't say it's categorically false when it isn't ... the only country that remotely comes close is the UK ... but it's definitely not Russia or USSR ...mrussel1 said:Where I have taken offense that frankly I have not let go to this point, were certain statements that nothing Russia has done in its past can ever compare to the criminal United States. If someone takes that view, then they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned because it's categorically false and absolutely devoid of any knowledge of Russia's history, particularly in the 20th century.
the issue here is how does something like this translate into a major terrorist network that requires arms and resources? ... who funds these groups? who arms them? ... and why? ... again - just looking at Syria now - you must know by now that the US has armed all the "rebel" groups that should be evident to most independent thinkers are actually terrorists ... arming them in the interests of overthrowing a non-secular gov't - something that is a supposed ideal of american values ... yet everywhere america has been in recent history in the middle east - we have less democracy and greater divisions among islamic faiths ...0 -
The US EXPLOITS those divisions - divide and conquer.
The majority of people in the Middle East don't want to be ruled by strongmen, nor religious extremists. But given a choice between the two, they would choose the former.
Why is there no other choice? Just because they fight and have always fought, right? No. It is not 'natural output' when the extremists have been armed and trained and fed intel by a superpower with an eye to maintaining economic hegemony! It is a 100% manipulated output that has disastrous consequences for the people of the region.
There would be hope for true secular democracy if the US would stop bombing these countries and propping up dictators. Allowing infrastructure (including schools and hospitals) to be built and maintained instead of destroying them and lending them money, with interest, to be rebuilt by foreign contractors, and their resources privatized and sold to those same corps. This has created an endless cycle of violence and poverty, which limits progress and gives rise to extremism. It is decade upon decade of lost progress.
You are coming across as using the age-old 'they are savages' justification for imperialism.Post edited by Drowned Out on0 -
I'm saying it's six half dozen. I was adamantly against the war in Iraq and firmly believe in the Pottery Barn rule along with Powell's rules of war. But it's not like any of these were peace loving, liberal democracies that treated religious minorities, women, or people not connected in the government fairly.polaris_x said:
so ... what are you saying!? ... Iran would be just as bad if you guys didn't overthrow mossadegh? ... you can't be serious!? ... israel would still be trouncing on the palestinians? ... iraq would still be a hotbed for terrorists!? ...mrussel1 said:
The history of the middle east is clear. We don't have less democracy today. We don't have more democracy today. The middle east has been held together by strongmen going back to the end of the Ottoman's. Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria... what they have in common is rule by a dictator using brute force. Oppressing opposition groups, rigging votes, jailing and killing their political enemies. The forces unleashed by the overthrow of the dictators are simply the natural output of nearly a century of repression (preceded by Ottoman oppression). The US did not create these divisions in the 21st century. They have been there for centuries...polaris_x said:
interesting you picked wahhabism which is primarily centred around saudi arabia which is a major US ally ... in any case - there are ultra conservative wings of almost every religion ...even buddhism ...mrussel1 said:
You still believe the US created a radical sect of Islam like Wahhabism, eh? Well that's quite a trick for the US gov't to go back in time and write some radical scripture so they can unleash it in the 21st century. Most impressive.polaris_x said:
prove it ... when pointed to all the incursions into latin america, middle east, asia ... the creation of terrorists groups like al qaeda and ISIL ... you ignore ... go ahead - prove that ANY country in this world has done more shit than the US ... just try ... you can't say it's categorically false when it isn't ... the only country that remotely comes close is the UK ... but it's definitely not Russia or USSR ...mrussel1 said:Where I have taken offense that frankly I have not let go to this point, were certain statements that nothing Russia has done in its past can ever compare to the criminal United States. If someone takes that view, then they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned because it's categorically false and absolutely devoid of any knowledge of Russia's history, particularly in the 20th century.
the issue here is how does something like this translate into a major terrorist network that requires arms and resources? ... who funds these groups? who arms them? ... and why? ... again - just looking at Syria now - you must know by now that the US has armed all the "rebel" groups that should be evident to most independent thinkers are actually terrorists ... arming them in the interests of overthrowing a non-secular gov't - something that is a supposed ideal of american values ... yet everywhere america has been in recent history in the middle east - we have less democracy and greater divisions among islamic faiths ...
Iraq would likely not be a hotbed for terrorism because they would be exterminated by the dictator. But the Kurds would be oppressed and murdered along with other religious groups not affiliated with the government. It's just a curious argument that living under the dictator is/was better. I'm saying they both suck ass, but not that it was better before.0 -
I don't know how you can possibly make that statement sitting in front of a computer in Canada. It's completely without empirical evidence.Drowned Out said:The US EXPLOITS those divisions - divide and conquer.
The majority of people in the Middle East don't want to be ruled by strongmen, nor religious extremists. But given a choice between the two, they would choose the former.
Why is there no other choice? Just because they fight and have always fought, right? No. It is not 'natural output' when the extremists have been armed and trained and fed intel by a superpower with an eye to maintaining economic hegemony! It is a 100% manipulated output that has disastrous consequences for the people of the region.
There would be hope for true secular democracy if the US would stop bombing these countries and propping up dictators. Allowing infrastructure (including schools and hospitals) to be built and maintained instead of destroying them and lending them money, with interest, to be rebuilt by foreign contractors, and their resources privatized and sold to those same corps. This has created an endless cycle of violence and poverty, which limits progress and gives rise to extremism. It is decade upon decade of lost progress.
You are coming across as using the age-old 'they are savages' justification for imperialism.0 -
So typical that you ignore everything else I said and focus on one sentence asking for proof. It's common sense, unless you believe that the majority of the people in the Middle East are indeed savages who would rather live under ISIS. ISIS does not have the support of the people of Syria nor Iraq. I don't need empirical evidence of this, just a little faith in humanity.0
-
It's hard to get past statements that you just created. There is no evidence.. no valid polls and I'm sure you didn't go over there and do a bunch of surveys about it, so there's that. Additionally there is ZERO evidence that any of these countries that we have discussed are interested in a liberal, secular democracy. Iran may be the closest one, as the Revolutionaries die out. But it's not like there's a move afoot.Drowned Out said:So typical that you ignore everything else I said and focus on one sentence asking for proof. It's common sense, unless you believe that the majority of the people in the Middle East are indeed savages who would rather live under ISIS. ISIS does not have the support of the people of Syria nor Iraq. I don't need empirical evidence of this, just a little faith in humanity.
And don't try to pin some 'savages' comment on me. No one said they aren't capable or aren't smart enough. It's a ridiculous charge. And your statement is basically saying "either you have my point of view, or you're a racist" is just as silly.0 -
There are plenty of polls concluding that ISIS has very little public support….and I’ve only seen one that concludes that they do have public support (and it’s from AJ which has been about as biased as can be in regards to Syria). No, I have never seen one that asks directly if Syrians or Iraqi’s would prefer Assad or Hussein over ISIS, but with the support numbers for ISIS being in single digits in every country but Syria (which is at 15%), it is pretty much a foregone conclusion. You’re right that both options kinda suck, but considering what ISIS has done to Iraq and Syria, I’m sure very few people want to see them in power. I also base this opinion on my own reading of indy reports out of the region over the last 5-6 years. I don’t think I’m so ill-informed that I can’t form an opinion on this without making huge leaps. Stating it as fact is maybe inaccurate, but I think it could be called an informed hypothesis.
But for argument’s sake, lets say I agree with you that they don’t want liberal, secular governance….then wtf are we doing over there? Aren’t we officially supporting regime change in order to rescue the citizens of those nations, bringing about liberal democracy and secular governance? This is where you admit to imperialist aspiration, prefaced with ‘if we didn’t do it, someone else would’ assumptions.
I will stop putting the savages comment on you when you stop trying to make it sound like Versailles, and possibly the Iraq war, were the only instances in which the US influenced the current strife in the region, with all the other static being inherent to ancient divisions that prevent anyone from getting along. Like I said, the US foments those divisions and must take responsibility for a large portion of the brutality as a result – this includes the dictator oppression of minorities and women you mentioned….after all, US alliances and support for those dictators shift with the money flow, not with human rights records. Who knows where they would be if the US alliances hadn’t been meddling for decades….
0 -
Tulsi Gabbard: There are no moderate rebels
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/01/31/congresswoman-exposes-damning-truth-visit-syria-no-moderate-rebels/#sthash.wBcC9ZO4.CRdJVXjb.dpbs
0 -
Tulsi Gabbard who had the entire trip planned and controlled by the regime comes out of there with the official state position. Shocking.JC29856 said:Tulsi Gabbard: There are no moderate rebels
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/01/31/congresswoman-exposes-damning-truth-visit-syria-no-moderate-rebels/#sthash.wBcC9ZO4.CRdJVXjb.dpbs0 -
I'm not particularly inclined to argue with any of this because it's a defensible position (I'm not going to get into arguing opinion numbers, I just don't see how anyone can make blanket statements for these populations).Drowned Out said:There are plenty of polls concluding that ISIS has very little public support….and I’ve only seen one that concludes that they do have public support (and it’s from AJ which has been about as biased as can be in regards to Syria). No, I have never seen one that asks directly if Syrians or Iraqi’s would prefer Assad or Hussein over ISIS, but with the support numbers for ISIS being in single digits in every country but Syria (which is at 15%), it is pretty much a foregone conclusion. You’re right that both options kinda suck, but considering what ISIS has done to Iraq and Syria, I’m sure very few people want to see them in power. I also base this opinion on my own reading of indy reports out of the region over the last 5-6 years. I don’t think I’m so ill-informed that I can’t form an opinion on this without making huge leaps. Stating it as fact is maybe inaccurate, but I think it could be called an informed hypothesis.
But for argument’s sake, lets say I agree with you that they don’t want liberal, secular governance….then wtf are we doing over there? Aren’t we officially supporting regime change in order to rescue the citizens of those nations, bringing about liberal democracy and secular governance? This is where you admit to imperialist aspiration, prefaced with ‘if we didn’t do it, someone else would’ assumptions.
I will stop putting the savages comment on you when you stop trying to make it sound like Versailles, and possibly the Iraq war, were the only instances in which the US influenced the current strife in the region, with all the other static being inherent to ancient divisions that prevent anyone from getting along. Like I said, the US foments those divisions and must take responsibility for a large portion of the brutality as a result – this includes the dictator oppression of minorities and women you mentioned….after all, US alliances and support for those dictators shift with the money flow, not with human rights records. Who knows where they would be if the US alliances hadn’t been meddling for decades….
WTF are we doing over there? Well I don't know. I'm not saying it isn't misguided. I'm not saying there has never been corporate interests involved. And I'm not saying the US isn't arming rebels. But I can easily say all of those thing without trying to make a pro-Assad case or a pro-Russia case. Putin is simply doing the same thing we have done...exerting global power to create economic spheres of influence.0 -
^^ Do you have empirical evidence for your claim that the trip was planned and controlled by Assad?0
-
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will'mrussel1 said:
I'm not particularly inclined to argue with any of this because it's a defensible position (I'm not going to get into arguing opinion numbers, I just don't see how anyone can make blanket statements for these populations).Drowned Out said:There are plenty of polls concluding that ISIS has very little public support….and I’ve only seen one that concludes that they do have public support (and it’s from AJ which has been about as biased as can be in regards to Syria). No, I have never seen one that asks directly if Syrians or Iraqi’s would prefer Assad or Hussein over ISIS, but with the support numbers for ISIS being in single digits in every country but Syria (which is at 15%), it is pretty much a foregone conclusion. You’re right that both options kinda suck, but considering what ISIS has done to Iraq and Syria, I’m sure very few people want to see them in power. I also base this opinion on my own reading of indy reports out of the region over the last 5-6 years. I don’t think I’m so ill-informed that I can’t form an opinion on this without making huge leaps. Stating it as fact is maybe inaccurate, but I think it could be called an informed hypothesis.
But for argument’s sake, lets say I agree with you that they don’t want liberal, secular governance….then wtf are we doing over there? Aren’t we officially supporting regime change in order to rescue the citizens of those nations, bringing about liberal democracy and secular governance? This is where you admit to imperialist aspiration, prefaced with ‘if we didn’t do it, someone else would’ assumptions.
I will stop putting the savages comment on you when you stop trying to make it sound like Versailles, and possibly the Iraq war, were the only instances in which the US influenced the current strife in the region, with all the other static being inherent to ancient divisions that prevent anyone from getting along. Like I said, the US foments those divisions and must take responsibility for a large portion of the brutality as a result – this includes the dictator oppression of minorities and women you mentioned….after all, US alliances and support for those dictators shift with the money flow, not with human rights records. Who knows where they would be if the US alliances hadn’t been meddling for decades….
WTF are we doing over there? Well I don't know. I'm not saying it isn't misguided. I'm not saying there has never been corporate interests involved. And I'm not saying the US isn't arming rebels. But I can easily say all of those thing without trying to make a pro-Assad case or a pro-Russia case. Putin is simply doing the same thing we have done...exerting global power to create economic spheres of influence.
The difference between the two powers actions is that Russia already had influence in Syria - they aren't 'creating' anything; they are fighting to maintain an important part of their sphere of influence, and defend an ally. Maybe that's pro-Russia. But considering the US attempt to 'create' influence is the main factor in 500k deaths to date, I would posit that there is an easy anti-US case to build.0 -
Yes an excellent rationalization for sure. Russia was definitely just trying to protect it's sphere when it caused 9+MM dead in the Ukraine or when over a million Afghan citizens were killed (not to mention soldiers) during the 80's or the almost 200k in Chechnya, or the 200k Poles killed by the Soviets during the occupation OR the 1 million ethnic Germans that died during the forced re-settlement post war. Gotta love those benevolent Ruskies.Drowned Out said:
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will'mrussel1 said:
I'm not particularly inclined to argue with any of this because it's a defensible position (I'm not going to get into arguing opinion numbers, I just don't see how anyone can make blanket statements for these populations).Drowned Out said:There are plenty of polls concluding that ISIS has very little public support….and I’ve only seen one that concludes that they do have public support (and it’s from AJ which has been about as biased as can be in regards to Syria). No, I have never seen one that asks directly if Syrians or Iraqi’s would prefer Assad or Hussein over ISIS, but with the support numbers for ISIS being in single digits in every country but Syria (which is at 15%), it is pretty much a foregone conclusion. You’re right that both options kinda suck, but considering what ISIS has done to Iraq and Syria, I’m sure very few people want to see them in power. I also base this opinion on my own reading of indy reports out of the region over the last 5-6 years. I don’t think I’m so ill-informed that I can’t form an opinion on this without making huge leaps. Stating it as fact is maybe inaccurate, but I think it could be called an informed hypothesis.
But for argument’s sake, lets say I agree with you that they don’t want liberal, secular governance….then wtf are we doing over there? Aren’t we officially supporting regime change in order to rescue the citizens of those nations, bringing about liberal democracy and secular governance? This is where you admit to imperialist aspiration, prefaced with ‘if we didn’t do it, someone else would’ assumptions.
I will stop putting the savages comment on you when you stop trying to make it sound like Versailles, and possibly the Iraq war, were the only instances in which the US influenced the current strife in the region, with all the other static being inherent to ancient divisions that prevent anyone from getting along. Like I said, the US foments those divisions and must take responsibility for a large portion of the brutality as a result – this includes the dictator oppression of minorities and women you mentioned….after all, US alliances and support for those dictators shift with the money flow, not with human rights records. Who knows where they would be if the US alliances hadn’t been meddling for decades….
WTF are we doing over there? Well I don't know. I'm not saying it isn't misguided. I'm not saying there has never been corporate interests involved. And I'm not saying the US isn't arming rebels. But I can easily say all of those thing without trying to make a pro-Assad case or a pro-Russia case. Putin is simply doing the same thing we have done...exerting global power to create economic spheres of influence.
The difference between the two powers actions is that Russia already had influence in Syria - they aren't 'creating' anything; they are fighting to maintain an important part of their sphere of influence, and defend an ally. Maybe that's pro-Russia. But considering the US attempt to 'create' influence is the main factor in 500k deaths to date, I would posit that there is an easy anti-US case to build.
And you continue to create words for other people (namely me). You need to cut that shit out. Who said "someone else will"? Not me. Nor is that argument embedded anywhere in my words.0 -
Are you speaking to Russias actions since Putin gained control?Drowned Out said:
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will'mrussel1 said:
I'm not particularly inclined to argue with any of this because it's a defensible position (I'm not going to get into arguing opinion numbers, I just don't see how anyone can make blanket statements for these populations).Drowned Out said:There are plenty of polls concluding that ISIS has very little public support….and I’ve only seen one that concludes that they do have public support (and it’s from AJ which has been about as biased as can be in regards to Syria). No, I have never seen one that asks directly if Syrians or Iraqi’s would prefer Assad or Hussein over ISIS, but with the support numbers for ISIS being in single digits in every country but Syria (which is at 15%), it is pretty much a foregone conclusion. You’re right that both options kinda suck, but considering what ISIS has done to Iraq and Syria, I’m sure very few people want to see them in power. I also base this opinion on my own reading of indy reports out of the region over the last 5-6 years. I don’t think I’m so ill-informed that I can’t form an opinion on this without making huge leaps. Stating it as fact is maybe inaccurate, but I think it could be called an informed hypothesis.
But for argument’s sake, lets say I agree with you that they don’t want liberal, secular governance….then wtf are we doing over there? Aren’t we officially supporting regime change in order to rescue the citizens of those nations, bringing about liberal democracy and secular governance? This is where you admit to imperialist aspiration, prefaced with ‘if we didn’t do it, someone else would’ assumptions.
I will stop putting the savages comment on you when you stop trying to make it sound like Versailles, and possibly the Iraq war, were the only instances in which the US influenced the current strife in the region, with all the other static being inherent to ancient divisions that prevent anyone from getting along. Like I said, the US foments those divisions and must take responsibility for a large portion of the brutality as a result – this includes the dictator oppression of minorities and women you mentioned….after all, US alliances and support for those dictators shift with the money flow, not with human rights records. Who knows where they would be if the US alliances hadn’t been meddling for decades….
WTF are we doing over there? Well I don't know. I'm not saying it isn't misguided. I'm not saying there has never been corporate interests involved. And I'm not saying the US isn't arming rebels. But I can easily say all of those thing without trying to make a pro-Assad case or a pro-Russia case. Putin is simply doing the same thing we have done...exerting global power to create economic spheres of influence.
The difference between the two powers actions is that Russia already had influence in Syria - they aren't 'creating' anything; they are fighting to maintain an important part of their sphere of influence, and defend an ally. Maybe that's pro-Russia. But considering the US attempt to 'create' influence is the main factor in 500k deaths to date, I would posit that there is an easy anti-US case to build.0 -
More strawman tactics....I could argue Russia's position (which I do,not out of support, but because of a virtual media blackout of the other side), and US involvement in Chechnya (and Georgia but you left that one out), and I will mention that Afghanistan was a US initiative - see Zbig's comments re:giving Russia their Vietnam..... But for the sake of topic integrity, I won't bother getting too deep on that. The ww2 and earlier stuff is practically ancient if we are comparing atrocities between the empires (which would be allowing your strawman to work so....whatever).mrussel1 said:
Yes an excellent rationalization for sure. Russia was definitely just trying to protect it's sphere when it caused 9+MM dead in the Ukraine or when over a million Afghan citizens were killed (not to mention soldiers) during the 80's or the almost 200k in Chechnya, or the 200k Poles killed by the Soviets during the occupation OR the 1 million ethnic Germans that died during the forced re-settlement post war. Gotta love those benevolent Ruskies.Drowned Out said:
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will'mrussel1 said:
I'm not particularly inclined to argue with any of this because it's a defensible position (I'm not going to get into arguing opinion numbers, I just don't see how anyone can make blanket statements for these populations).Drowned Out said:There are plenty of polls concluding that ISIS has very little public support….and I’ve only seen one that concludes that they do have public support (and it’s from AJ which has been about as biased as can be in regards to Syria). No, I have never seen one that asks directly if Syrians or Iraqi’s would prefer Assad or Hussein over ISIS, but with the support numbers for ISIS being in single digits in every country but Syria (which is at 15%), it is pretty much a foregone conclusion. You’re right that both options kinda suck, but considering what ISIS has done to Iraq and Syria, I’m sure very few people want to see them in power. I also base this opinion on my own reading of indy reports out of the region over the last 5-6 years. I don’t think I’m so ill-informed that I can’t form an opinion on this without making huge leaps. Stating it as fact is maybe inaccurate, but I think it could be called an informed hypothesis.
But for argument’s sake, lets say I agree with you that they don’t want liberal, secular governance….then wtf are we doing over there? Aren’t we officially supporting regime change in order to rescue the citizens of those nations, bringing about liberal democracy and secular governance? This is where you admit to imperialist aspiration, prefaced with ‘if we didn’t do it, someone else would’ assumptions.
I will stop putting the savages comment on you when you stop trying to make it sound like Versailles, and possibly the Iraq war, were the only instances in which the US influenced the current strife in the region, with all the other static being inherent to ancient divisions that prevent anyone from getting along. Like I said, the US foments those divisions and must take responsibility for a large portion of the brutality as a result – this includes the dictator oppression of minorities and women you mentioned….after all, US alliances and support for those dictators shift with the money flow, not with human rights records. Who knows where they would be if the US alliances hadn’t been meddling for decades….
WTF are we doing over there? Well I don't know. I'm not saying it isn't misguided. I'm not saying there has never been corporate interests involved. And I'm not saying the US isn't arming rebels. But I can easily say all of those thing without trying to make a pro-Assad case or a pro-Russia case. Putin is simply doing the same thing we have done...exerting global power to create economic spheres of influence.
The difference between the two powers actions is that Russia already had influence in Syria - they aren't 'creating' anything; they are fighting to maintain an important part of their sphere of influence, and defend an ally. Maybe that's pro-Russia. But considering the US attempt to 'create' influence is the main factor in 500k deaths to date, I would posit that there is an easy anti-US case to build.
And you continue to create words for other people (namely me). You need to cut that shit out. Who said "someone else will"? Not me. Nor is that argument embedded anywhere in my words.
'Someone else will' was in reference to conversation earlier in the thread. By saying Russia is doing the same thing the US is doing, that's what you are inferringPost edited by Drowned Out on0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help