Sorry, I added an extra 0. Up to 100,000 have defected according to some sources. But whether you think it was 100k or 10k, beloved leaders with 90% election numbers don't have Civil Wars like this and they don't have senior officers and soldier defect. The FSA is absolutely infiltrated with ISIS now. But that's not how it started. There were uprisings in Syria and the army was sent to quell them. The infiltration of ISIS is why it's hard for the US to pick a side now.
Sorry, I added an extra 0. Up to 100,000 have defected according to some sources. But whether you think it was 100k or 10k, beloved leaders with 90% election numbers don't have Civil Wars like this and they don't have senior officers and soldier defect. The FSA is absolutely infiltrated with ISIS now. But that's not how it started. There were uprisings in Syria and the army was sent to quell them. The infiltration of ISIS is why it's hard for the US to pick a side now.
the actual reported number is 10,000 ... now, again - let's try and think critically about this ... how is that an army that has supposedly abandoned Assad still able to put up a fight against both a US funded and armed FSA and ISIS at the same time? .... russians? ... maybe but they don't have many boots on the ground ... could it actually be because the army is actually very loyal to Assad and that the people are loyal to Assad? ...
think about it ... if the country really wanted Assad out - you don't think 5 years and the help of ISIS would do it? ... the only reason Syria continues to hold strong is because the people and the army support the gov't ...
Sorry, I added an extra 0. Up to 100,000 have defected according to some sources. But whether you think it was 100k or 10k, beloved leaders with 90% election numbers don't have Civil Wars like this and they don't have senior officers and soldier defect. The FSA is absolutely infiltrated with ISIS now. But that's not how it started. There were uprisings in Syria and the army was sent to quell them. The infiltration of ISIS is why it's hard for the US to pick a side now.
the actual reported number is 10,000 ... now, again - let's try and think critically about this ... how is that an army that has supposedly abandoned Assad still able to put up a fight against both a US funded and armed FSA and ISIS at the same time? .... russians? ... maybe but they don't have many boots on the ground ... could it actually be because the army is actually very loyal to Assad and that the people are loyal to Assad? ...
think about it ... if the country really wanted Assad out - you don't think 5 years and the help of ISIS would do it? ... the only reason Syria continues to hold strong is because the people and the army support the gov't ...
The numbers range from 10 to 100, depending on your source and bias. But you are literally the first person that I've come across that is arguing that the country and military (current and former obviously) is overwhelmingly loyal to Assad. Are you arguing that there is no Civil War? That this is really an armed invasion only? If this is the case, why is Assad attacking his own citizens?
Sorry, I added an extra 0. Up to 100,000 have defected according to some sources. But whether you think it was 100k or 10k, beloved leaders with 90% election numbers don't have Civil Wars like this and they don't have senior officers and soldier defect. The FSA is absolutely infiltrated with ISIS now. But that's not how it started. There were uprisings in Syria and the army was sent to quell them. The infiltration of ISIS is why it's hard for the US to pick a side now.
the actual reported number is 10,000 ... now, again - let's try and think critically about this ... how is that an army that has supposedly abandoned Assad still able to put up a fight against both a US funded and armed FSA and ISIS at the same time? .... russians? ... maybe but they don't have many boots on the ground ... could it actually be because the army is actually very loyal to Assad and that the people are loyal to Assad? ...
think about it ... if the country really wanted Assad out - you don't think 5 years and the help of ISIS would do it? ... the only reason Syria continues to hold strong is because the people and the army support the gov't ...
The Alewite minority is loyal to Assad. Assad's military, particularly the officer corps is made up of family/tribe and Alawites. The rest of the population, made up of many other religious sects, is paying the price for not being Alewite and/or loyal. Russian aid with airpower and special ops has definitely turned the tide for Assad. What began as peaceful protests, morphed into a brutal military crackdown morphed into a civil war morphed into an Iraqi ISIS moment of opportunity morphed into a proxy war. There is no "side" to take in that war as none of the sides are rational actors. They all have grievances with each other and its why a dictator was needed to keep 'em separated. Let the Russians get bogged down in that morass. And yes, innocents pay the price. They always do. Ever hear of Hamas rules?
Trump, Trump, Trump in 35 days. He can sort it out. He knows more than his generals after all.
Sorry, I added an extra 0. Up to 100,000 have defected according to some sources. But whether you think it was 100k or 10k, beloved leaders with 90% election numbers don't have Civil Wars like this and they don't have senior officers and soldier defect. The FSA is absolutely infiltrated with ISIS now. But that's not how it started. There were uprisings in Syria and the army was sent to quell them. The infiltration of ISIS is why it's hard for the US to pick a side now.
the actual reported number is 10,000 ... now, again - let's try and think critically about this ... how is that an army that has supposedly abandoned Assad still able to put up a fight against both a US funded and armed FSA and ISIS at the same time? .... russians? ... maybe but they don't have many boots on the ground ... could it actually be because the army is actually very loyal to Assad and that the people are loyal to Assad? ...
think about it ... if the country really wanted Assad out - you don't think 5 years and the help of ISIS would do it? ... the only reason Syria continues to hold strong is because the people and the army support the gov't ...
The numbers range from 10 to 100, depending on your source and bias. But you are literally the first person that I've come across that is arguing that the country and military (current and former obviously) is overwhelmingly loyal to Assad. Are you arguing that there is no Civil War? That this is really an armed invasion only? If this is the case, why is Assad attacking his own citizens?
well ... what does your brain tell you? ... look at who the FSA are ... these aren't farmers and taxi drivers taking up arms ... these are armed militia ... if there was a civil war and assad was as unpopular as you said ... don't you think with US and ISIS backing - this war would have ended a long time ago? ... it doesn't reconcile ...
and yes ... i'm telling you it's not a civil war ... it's foreign sponsored attempt at regime change ...
Sorry, I added an extra 0. Up to 100,000 have defected according to some sources. But whether you think it was 100k or 10k, beloved leaders with 90% election numbers don't have Civil Wars like this and they don't have senior officers and soldier defect. The FSA is absolutely infiltrated with ISIS now. But that's not how it started. There were uprisings in Syria and the army was sent to quell them. The infiltration of ISIS is why it's hard for the US to pick a side now.
the actual reported number is 10,000 ... now, again - let's try and think critically about this ... how is that an army that has supposedly abandoned Assad still able to put up a fight against both a US funded and armed FSA and ISIS at the same time? .... russians? ... maybe but they don't have many boots on the ground ... could it actually be because the army is actually very loyal to Assad and that the people are loyal to Assad? ...
think about it ... if the country really wanted Assad out - you don't think 5 years and the help of ISIS would do it? ... the only reason Syria continues to hold strong is because the people and the army support the gov't ...
The numbers range from 10 to 100, depending on your source and bias. But you are literally the first person that I've come across that is arguing that the country and military (current and former obviously) is overwhelmingly loyal to Assad. Are you arguing that there is no Civil War? That this is really an armed invasion only? If this is the case, why is Assad attacking his own citizens?
well ... what does your brain tell you? ... look at who the FSA are ... these aren't farmers and taxi drivers taking up arms ... these are armed militia ... if there was a civil war and assad was as unpopular as you said ... don't you think with US and ISIS backing - this war would have ended a long time ago? ... it doesn't reconcile ...
and yes ... i'm telling you it's not a civil war ... it's foreign sponsored attempt at regime change ...
People taking up arms is the definition of a militia. I'm not arguing that the US hasn't backed it. But that's a far cry from arming and fighting it. I also believe it that ISIL fighters are certainly on the ground. I've said that numerous times. But we know that Russia is absolutely supporting Assad militarily and logistically. They need to maintain the route through Iran, one of the 'Stans (can't recall) and into Russia through Georgia. It's a vital economic pipeline. So I don't know how your brain is able to calculate that Syria plus the loyal army and Russia is somehow superior or even inferior to breakaway regions, cities + ISIL and any support by the US. Sounds like a fucking stalemate to me.
And I'm sorry, please show me any legitimized election in the first world where someone won 90%. Never happened in the US. How about Canada? UK? France? So when someone drops that kind of number, the only response is "no fucking way". What does your brain tell you?
Sorry, I added an extra 0. Up to 100,000 have defected according to some sources. But whether you think it was 100k or 10k, beloved leaders with 90% election numbers don't have Civil Wars like this and they don't have senior officers and soldier defect. The FSA is absolutely infiltrated with ISIS now. But that's not how it started. There were uprisings in Syria and the army was sent to quell them. The infiltration of ISIS is why it's hard for the US to pick a side now.
the actual reported number is 10,000 ... now, again - let's try and think critically about this ... how is that an army that has supposedly abandoned Assad still able to put up a fight against both a US funded and armed FSA and ISIS at the same time? .... russians? ... maybe but they don't have many boots on the ground ... could it actually be because the army is actually very loyal to Assad and that the people are loyal to Assad? ...
think about it ... if the country really wanted Assad out - you don't think 5 years and the help of ISIS would do it? ... the only reason Syria continues to hold strong is because the people and the army support the gov't ...
The numbers range from 10 to 100, depending on your source and bias. But you are literally the first person that I've come across that is arguing that the country and military (current and former obviously) is overwhelmingly loyal to Assad. Are you arguing that there is no Civil War? That this is really an armed invasion only? If this is the case, why is Assad attacking his own citizens?
well ... what does your brain tell you? ... look at who the FSA are ... these aren't farmers and taxi drivers taking up arms ... these are armed militia ... if there was a civil war and assad was as unpopular as you said ... don't you think with US and ISIS backing - this war would have ended a long time ago? ... it doesn't reconcile ...
and yes ... i'm telling you it's not a civil war ... it's foreign sponsored attempt at regime change ...
People taking up arms is the definition of a militia. I'm not arguing that the US hasn't backed it. But that's a far cry from arming and fighting it. I also believe it that ISIL fighters are certainly on the ground. I've said that numerous times. But we know that Russia is absolutely supporting Assad militarily and logistically. They need to maintain the route through Iran, one of the 'Stans (can't recall) and into Russia through Georgia. It's a vital economic pipeline. So I don't know how your brain is able to calculate that Syria plus the loyal army and Russia is somehow superior or even inferior to breakaway regions, cities + ISIL and any support by the US. Sounds like a fucking stalemate to me.
And I'm sorry, please show me any legitimized election in the first world where someone won 90%. Never happened in the US. How about Canada? UK? France? So when someone drops that kind of number, the only response is "no fucking way". What does your brain tell you?
russia is definitely supporting assad with air support, medical, aid and other resources ... but not boots ... how is that syria with supposedly all these people who hate the gov't can't overthrow them with the support of US arms and ISIS? ... when you look at the geopolitical ramifications - there's a lot of things at play ... and I would say - the digger you deep, the more you will see why the US is trying to overthrow Assad ...
as for the elections ... the US is a partisan country ... it's ALWAYS gonna be 50/50 ... every other country has a multi-party system ... so, it's near impossible to have 90% ..
Saddam started his death clock the second he tried selling oil in euros and not the almighty This would have weakened the value of the dollar and undermined the US economy. Same with Gadhafi years later with dinar
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots. The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.
I could list a few, but I'm sure you would shrug them off as either humanitarian actions, the unfortunate, unforeseen consequences of working with a double crossing dictator...or, of course, actions necessitated by soviet / Russian aggression.
I could list a few, but I'm sure you would shrug them off as either humanitarian actions, the unfortunate, unforeseen consequences of working with a double crossing dictator...or, of course, actions necessitated by soviet / Russian aggression.
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots. The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..
Chechnya Hodolomor Poland Katyn Afghanistan Great Purge Cultural Revolution
again ...
honduras chile vietnam nicaragua iran creators of al qaeda ISIS and the list goes on ...
not even close ...
Creators of ISIS and Al Qaeda?? That's a really bizarre argument that the US policy somehow created Wahhabism. I didn't know the DOD was writing religious texts now. Good to know. Now which one of the ones in the list was genocidal?
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots. The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..
Wait.. so is the goal Balkinization or war profiteering? And if it's Balkinization, that's another unusual argument because it was achieved in Versailles (oh and FYI, Canada signed that... you can thank that country for creating the chaos in the middle east)...
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots. The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..
Wait.. so is the goal Balkinization or war profiteering? And if it's Balkinization, that's another unusual argument because it was achieved in Versailles (oh and FYI, Canada signed that... you can thank that country for creating the chaos in the middle east)...
'stop picking on America, Canada is no better' Cnada rarely breaks with US / NATO policy, we are aware of that. We benefit from the same crimes...but pretty rarely instigate them. You're right about Versailles creating chaos, but Canada was barely even allowed to sign, and didn't participate in negotiations (unlike the US)...so not really sure what that little outburst was about. And don't be coy about Balkanization and war profiteering. It's all the same shit. Throw in some other catch phrases like hegemony and petro dollar. Do you honestly believe that the US does not have long term goals, spanning multiple regimes from both sides of the aisle, to maintain regional dominance in the Middle East? No no its R2P! Pure benevolence. Oh, and national security! Protecting the motherland!
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots. The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..
That's what I mean tho...if the guy was a fuckin intelligence officer, he should know the underlying goals. If you and I could see it, are we really to believe that a guy in his position is part of the brainwashed masses? I don't think so. He is glossing over the true motives, and even worse, putting a partisan spin on it.
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots. The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..
Wait.. so is the goal Balkinization or war profiteering? And if it's Balkinization, that's another unusual argument because it was achieved in Versailles (oh and FYI, Canada signed that... you can thank that country for creating the chaos in the middle east)...
'stop picking on America, Canada is no better' Cnada rarely breaks with US / NATO policy, we are aware of that. We benefit from the same crimes...but pretty rarely instigate them. You're right about Versailles creating chaos, but Canada was barely even allowed to sign, and didn't participate in negotiations (unlike the US)...so not really sure what that little outburst was about. And don't be coy about Balkanization and war profiteering. It's all the same shit. Throw in some other catch phrases like hegemony and petro dollar. Do you honestly believe that the US does not have long term goals, spanning multiple regimes from both sides of the aisle, to maintain regional dominance in the Middle East? No no its R2P! Pure benevolence. Oh, and national security! Protecting the motherland!
Let me counter a few points here:
1. The United States gained nothing but the commitment to the League of Nations from WWI. It was France and England that benefited from the spoils. 2. Canada benefits from the war crimes but rarely instigates them... is that a superior moral position? Sounds like a giant pussy. 3. Does the US want to have (not maintain) regional dominance? Of course we do. Again, I'm not stupid. But you don't think Russia's motives in the middle east, their alliances with Iran, taking of Crimea, etc. are not all related to the same strategic economic goals? Of course they are. 4. I have never made the statement that US actions are about benevolence. My point through this whole argument is that it is absurd to say (as has been said just recently here) that the US is much worse than Russia. That's crazy talk. The Russians have so much more direct, intentional blood on them than the US.
1. You can't say that the US didn't benefit from a treaty that was the framework for international debt collection. Either way, this is an odd tangent born only of a deflecting cheap shot. Whatever. 2. Does saying canada benefits from war crimes sound like an attempt at taking the moral high road? We rarely make any foreign policy decisions that will break favour with the US - just like virtually every other nation that participates in an economic system that revolves around US interests. I figured maybe conceding this would get you to stop trying to drag satellite nations into this, but now you're calling us pussies Canada has 40 million people and more land than the US. What chance do we have of standing up to THE superpower next door, when Ukraine, a smaller but more populous country, can't defend itself from a neighbouring lesser power, even with the help of THE superpower? How pussified does that make Ukrainians? This is schoolyard dad-toughness stuff.... 3. No, I don't. I think Russia's alliances and actions in your examples are self defence and reactionary measures against NATO aggression in their own backyard. I know you will have a shit fit over Crimea now, but that's ok. The US's goals are expansionary - pretty different. Let's not pretend the US is not doing all it can to further break Russia and bring them (along with each and every country that is not already) under the US economic bubble. That is not just protecting interests - it's expanding them. Is Russia doing the same? 4. I don't really care much for a contest of whose history of war crimes is worse. Was never really the point of my posts here. I do care about perspective on US imperialism. Even using caveats like 'direct, intentional' (as if the US not doing their own dirty work somehow makes their atrocities any better) doesn't change the fact that the US continues to aggressively expand its sphere of influence to include the entire world. Russia's actions may not be morally superior (tho I would argue that they are largely reactions to US/NATO aggression), but they are not morally inferior, either. Sorry, but your hatred of Russia and defence of US actions make it hard to believe that you don't buy into the 'R2P/benevolence/if not us, then Russia and they're way worse' mindset.
Comments
think about it ... if the country really wanted Assad out - you don't think 5 years and the help of ISIS would do it? ... the only reason Syria continues to hold strong is because the people and the army support the gov't ...
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Trump, Trump, Trump in 35 days. He can sort it out. He knows more than his generals after all.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
and yes ... i'm telling you it's not a civil war ... it's foreign sponsored attempt at regime change ...
And I'm sorry, please show me any legitimized election in the first world where someone won 90%. Never happened in the US. How about Canada? UK? France? So when someone drops that kind of number, the only response is "no fucking way". What does your brain tell you?
as for the elections ... the US is a partisan country ... it's ALWAYS gonna be 50/50 ... every other country has a multi-party system ... so, it's near impossible to have 90% ..
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/5471956
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam
Same with Gadhafi years later with dinar
The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.
Hodolomor
Poland
Katyn
Afghanistan
Great Purge
Cultural Revolution
honduras
chile
vietnam
nicaragua
iran
creators of al qaeda
ISIS
and the list goes on ...
not even close ...
Now which one of the ones in the list was genocidal?
Cnada rarely breaks with US / NATO policy, we are aware of that. We benefit from the same crimes...but pretty rarely instigate them. You're right about Versailles creating chaos, but Canada was barely even allowed to sign, and didn't participate in negotiations (unlike the US)...so not really sure what that little outburst was about.
And don't be coy about Balkanization and war profiteering. It's all the same shit. Throw in some other catch phrases like hegemony and petro dollar. Do you honestly believe that the US does not have long term goals, spanning multiple regimes from both sides of the aisle, to maintain regional dominance in the Middle East?
No no its R2P! Pure benevolence. Oh, and national security! Protecting the motherland!
1. The United States gained nothing but the commitment to the League of Nations from WWI. It was France and England that benefited from the spoils.
2. Canada benefits from the war crimes but rarely instigates them... is that a superior moral position? Sounds like a giant pussy.
3. Does the US want to have (not maintain) regional dominance? Of course we do. Again, I'm not stupid. But you don't think Russia's motives in the middle east, their alliances with Iran, taking of Crimea, etc. are not all related to the same strategic economic goals? Of course they are.
4. I have never made the statement that US actions are about benevolence. My point through this whole argument is that it is absurd to say (as has been said just recently here) that the US is much worse than Russia. That's crazy talk. The Russians have so much more direct, intentional blood on them than the US.
2. Does saying canada benefits from war crimes sound like an attempt at taking the moral high road? We rarely make any foreign policy decisions that will break favour with the US - just like virtually every other nation that participates in an economic system that revolves around US interests. I figured maybe conceding this would get you to stop trying to drag satellite nations into this, but now you're calling us pussies
3. No, I don't. I think Russia's alliances and actions in your examples are self defence and reactionary measures against NATO aggression in their own backyard. I know you will have a shit fit over Crimea now, but that's ok. The US's goals are expansionary - pretty different. Let's not pretend the US is not doing all it can to further break Russia and bring them (along with each and every country that is not already) under the US economic bubble. That is not just protecting interests - it's expanding them. Is Russia doing the same?
4. I don't really care much for a contest of whose history of war crimes is worse. Was never really the point of my posts here. I do care about perspective on US imperialism. Even using caveats like 'direct, intentional' (as if the US not doing their own dirty work somehow makes their atrocities any better) doesn't change the fact that the US continues to aggressively expand its sphere of influence to include the entire world. Russia's actions may not be morally superior (tho I would argue that they are largely reactions to US/NATO aggression), but they are not morally inferior, either. Sorry, but your hatred of Russia and defence of US actions make it hard to believe that you don't buy into the 'R2P/benevolence/if not us, then Russia and they're way worse' mindset.