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.
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.
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.
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….
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….
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). 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.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
Are you speaking to Russias actions since Putin gained control?
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
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). '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 inferring
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
Are you speaking to Russias actions since Putin gained control?
Not sure what you're asking...I was speaking of Russia's reason for involvement in Syria in the first place.
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.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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 ...
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...
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!? ...
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. 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.
read up on what iran was when they elected mossadegh ... the dude went to the liberty bell as a measure of what he wanted iran to be like ...
Tulsi Gabbard who had the entire trip planned and controlled by the regime comes out of there with the official state position. Shocking.
As I said before I think there is more going on here behind the scenes. I think the new game play will be to split Syria and Russia from Iran. Assad will be allowed to stay (which Russia wants) and Russia will be able to maintain a presence if they help in tossing the Mullahs. The Sunnis will be on board for this but they have to help roll back ISIS.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
Great. So the US should just pay everybody reparations and eliminate their military altogether. We'll all just hold our cellphones up while the band plays Imagine. Seems like a smart play...not naive at all.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
Great. So the US should just pay everybody reparations and eliminate their military altogether. We'll all just hold our cellphones up while the band plays Imagine. Seems like a smart play...not naive at all.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
Great. So the US should just pay everybody reparations and eliminate their military altogether. We'll all just hold our cellphones up while the band plays Imagine. Seems like a smart play...not naive at all.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
Great. So the US should just pay everybody reparations and eliminate their military altogether. We'll all just hold our cellphones up while the band plays Imagine. Seems like a smart play...not naive at all.
do you acknowledge this history or not?
This is talking about proxy wars in which the US was not even directly involved. Perhaps they supported a regime that was instrumental, perhaps not, depending on the situation. The brief numbers I pointed out above involve direct conflict of Soviet soldiers, not proxy. Using their methodology (without bothering to refute the argument or the numbers), you would have to hold the Soviet Union responsible for every death in Vietnam since it provided support to the Cong. This article is holding the US responsible for every death caused by the Soviets in Afghanistan during their war. You could also argue holding the Soviets responsible for the Cultural Revolution which amounted to somewhere in the range of 30MM deaths, using the same set of principles.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
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). '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 inferring
It's not a straw man argument. Polaris continues to argue the point. A straw man is a fabricated argument that someone then seeks to tear down. I did not fabricate the point Polaris is making.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
Great. So the US should just pay everybody reparations and eliminate their military altogether. We'll all just hold our cellphones up while the band plays Imagine. Seems like a smart play...not naive at all.
do you acknowledge this history or not?
This is talking about proxy wars in which the US was not even directly involved. Perhaps they supported a regime that was instrumental, perhaps not, depending on the situation. The brief numbers I pointed out above involve direct conflict of Soviet soldiers, not proxy. Using their methodology (without bothering to refute the argument or the numbers), you would have to hold the Soviet Union responsible for every death in Vietnam since it provided support to the Cong. This article is holding the US responsible for every death caused by the Soviets in Afghanistan during their war. You could also argue holding the Soviets responsible for the Cultural Revolution which amounted to somewhere in the range of 30MM deaths, using the same set of principles.
how can you say the US is not involved in proxy wars? ... so, you arm "rebels" that causes a country to go to civil war to defend its sovereignty and you don't want to take responsibility!? ... and really on vietnam!? ... the US supported a repressive regime in south vietnam that murdered and tortured many innocent people in order to combat any allies the soviet union had ... there was no moral purpose here ... how do you defend plundering nations into war and suffering!??? ...
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
Great. So the US should just pay everybody reparations and eliminate their military altogether. We'll all just hold our cellphones up while the band plays Imagine. Seems like a smart play...not naive at all.
do you acknowledge this history or not?
This is talking about proxy wars in which the US was not even directly involved. Perhaps they supported a regime that was instrumental, perhaps not, depending on the situation. The brief numbers I pointed out above involve direct conflict of Soviet soldiers, not proxy. Using their methodology (without bothering to refute the argument or the numbers), you would have to hold the Soviet Union responsible for every death in Vietnam since it provided support to the Cong. This article is holding the US responsible for every death caused by the Soviets in Afghanistan during their war. You could also argue holding the Soviets responsible for the Cultural Revolution which amounted to somewhere in the range of 30MM deaths, using the same set of principles.
how can you say the US is not involved in proxy wars? ... so, you arm "rebels" that causes a country to go to civil war to defend its sovereignty and you don't want to take responsibility!? ... and really on vietnam!? ... the US supported a repressive regime in south vietnam that murdered and tortured many innocent people in order to combat any allies the soviet union had ... there was no moral purpose here ... how do you defend plundering nations into war and suffering!??? ...
You're missing my point. I'm not defending the US for Vietnam. Everyone knows it was fought on a faulty Domino theory. My point is that you can't hold the US responsible for Afghan in the 80's (as the article does) and not hold the Soviets responsible for Vietnam, Cultural Revolution, etc. It's the same argument.
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
Great. So the US should just pay everybody reparations and eliminate their military altogether. We'll all just hold our cellphones up while the band plays Imagine. Seems like a smart play...not naive at all.
do you acknowledge this history or not?
This is talking about proxy wars in which the US was not even directly involved. Perhaps they supported a regime that was instrumental, perhaps not, depending on the situation. The brief numbers I pointed out above involve direct conflict of Soviet soldiers, not proxy. Using their methodology (without bothering to refute the argument or the numbers), you would have to hold the Soviet Union responsible for every death in Vietnam since it provided support to the Cong. This article is holding the US responsible for every death caused by the Soviets in Afghanistan during their war. You could also argue holding the Soviets responsible for the Cultural Revolution which amounted to somewhere in the range of 30MM deaths, using the same set of principles.
how can you say the US is not involved in proxy wars? ... so, you arm "rebels" that causes a country to go to civil war to defend its sovereignty and you don't want to take responsibility!? ... and really on vietnam!? ... the US supported a repressive regime in south vietnam that murdered and tortured many innocent people in order to combat any allies the soviet union had ... there was no moral purpose here ... how do you defend plundering nations into war and suffering!??? ...
You're missing my point. I'm not defending the US for Vietnam. Everyone knows it was fought on a faulty Domino theory. My point is that you can't hold the US responsible for Afghan in the 80's (as the article does) and not hold the Soviets responsible for Vietnam, Cultural Revolution, etc. It's the same argument.
but the soviets wouldn't have been in afghanistan or vietnam if the US didn't start shit up
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….
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). 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.
Guess I was right to assume you'd now admit imperialist aspirations and 'if we don't someone else will' 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.
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.
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.
Great. So the US should just pay everybody reparations and eliminate their military altogether. We'll all just hold our cellphones up while the band plays Imagine. Seems like a smart play...not naive at all.
i'm in the process of cancelling my monthly amnesty donation
1. if you look at the footnotes of the actual report - amnesty has only documented proof of 375 deaths 2. they are forecasting that number by making assumptions which essentially means its a made up number 3. the information is based again on sources from supposed ngo's that are funded by US and Turkey and other nations that are seeing regime change in Syria. none of these groups are on the ground in Syria - they are based in places like Lebanon or Turkey. 4. look at the video posted above about the supposed child who was in an ambulance 5. the war propaganda is being managed by PR firms
Comments
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.
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….
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/01/31/congresswoman-exposes-damning-truth-visit-syria-no-moderate-rebels/#sthash.wBcC9ZO4.CRdJVXjb.dpbs
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 inferring
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/middleeast/syria-executions-amnesty-international-report/index.html
syria-executions-amnesty-international-report
13,000 executed after summary trials.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1. if you look at the footnotes of the actual report - amnesty has only documented proof of 375 deaths
2. they are forecasting that number by making assumptions which essentially means its a made up number
3. the information is based again on sources from supposed ngo's that are funded by US and Turkey and other nations that are seeing regime change in Syria. none of these groups are on the ground in Syria - they are based in places like Lebanon or Turkey.
4. look at the video posted above about the supposed child who was in an ambulance
5. the war propaganda is being managed by PR firms