Org Mobile Site
Thread: Syria
Arm the Kurds in the east, bomb all of the large military camps west of Damascus, government or insurgent. The only exception to the bombing should be those camps which are interested in secular justice, they can have a religious dimension, but if they are Salafi jihadists they eat dirt. Inspect camps using small numbers of boots on ground and clandestine external civilian reconnaissanse.
No Way put boots on the ground!
Leave the place alone!
You know that 60% say no go in Syria
31% say undecided, in other words, they could not care less one way or the other, while only 9% think intervention is necessary.
The military wants no part of it and for good reason. The troops! The don’t want to go some where that the supposed friendly side is more a danger than the designated enemy.
The powers that be are on very shaky ground on this one.
Leave the place alone!
You know that 60% say no go in Syria
31% say undecided, in other words, they could not care less one way or the other, while only 9% think intervention is necessary.
The military wants no part of it and for good reason. The troops! The don’t want to go some where that the supposed friendly side is more a danger than the designated enemy.
The powers that be are on very shaky ground on this one.
This reminds me so much of Yugoslav conflict. Complicated as hell with no good guys. Now for the sake of political convenience, good guys and bad guys need to be invented. It worked back then, but the world has matured a little since then.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Assuming that it was the Syrian Government flies in the face of reason. They had nothing to win and everything to lose by the use of chemical weapons.
It has been the military and intelligence networks that have kept the politicians in check up to this point but it only seems to have slowed them a bit.
This is insane. It can lead to a wider war. Russia will not sit on its hands.
Yahoo news said in Apr there would be a false flag chemical attack in Syria this summer. Opposition media have reported this twice before, must have got their signals crossed.
It is clearly a set up.
Depends on your definition of "government" - it's entirely possible that Assad has lost control of his forces to the extent that they're using chemical rounds in their artillery. That's hardly surprising at this point, given the amount of chemical weapons floating around.Possibly a local unit, possibly Hamas.Assuming that it was the Syrian Government flies in the face of reason. They had nothing to win and everything to lose by the use of chemical weapons.
It has been the military and intelligence networks that have kept the politicians in check up to this point but it only seems to have slowed them a bit.
This is insane. It can lead to a wider war. Russia will not sit on its hands.
Yahoo news said in Apr there would be a false flag chemical attack in Syria this summer. Opposition media have reported this twice before, must have got their signals crossed.
It is clearly a set up.
Regardless, the massive humanitarian crisis (reportedly a million child refugees), argues against the "better not to intervene" shtick.
Did Libya turn out the way we wanted?
Not so much, but it's not a completely dead duck, arguably doing better than Egypt, and drawing the conflict likely saved lives and infrastructure to judge from what is happening in Syria. There are still Liberal-leaning and secular voices alive in Libya, in Syria they've all been either squashed or radicalised.
Either we intervene now, or we intervene later, but like Somalia this conflict will continue to fester unless the boil is lanced.
As to Russia - last word was that they were working to quickly evacuate their remaining Civilians.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Either we intervene now, or we intervene later
Either we intervene now, or we intervene later
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Sure - you can wait a decade until Syrian Society has completely collapsed and then let Iran intervene.That is a line I don’t even think that you believe.
UN inspectors on site when chemical weapons are deployed by the Syrian Government, with the full knowledge it would bring in the US and NATO? Give us a break!
They don’t pass out chemical munitions like gum drops.
Also the UN Inspectors have been kept from a full examination of the site by snipers, most likely rebel snipers. But lets not stop there.
We have lies and counter lies :http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_25/...Damascus-8968/
An Libya is just off the radar. They are still pretty much in a state of lawless chaos after all this time.
And speaking of Somalia, we intervened, but what good did it do? It has been over 20 years and it is still a mess. The intervention did nothing to help.
So I guess we just make the same stupid mistake one more time and everything will be just peachy.
UN inspectors on site when chemical weapons are deployed by the Syrian Government, with the full knowledge it would bring in the US and NATO? Give us a break!
They don’t pass out chemical munitions like gum drops.
Also the UN Inspectors have been kept from a full examination of the site by snipers, most likely rebel snipers. But lets not stop there.
We have lies and counter lies :http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_25/...Damascus-8968/
An Libya is just off the radar. They are still pretty much in a state of lawless chaos after all this time.
And speaking of Somalia, we intervened, but what good did it do? It has been over 20 years and it is still a mess. The intervention did nothing to help.
So I guess we just make the same stupid mistake one more time and everything will be just peachy.
Let's see what the inspectors can dig up...
1. Think
2. Act
Not the other way around.
1. Think
2. Act
Not the other way around.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Let's see what the inspectors can dig up...
1. Think
2. Act
Not the other way around.
I would agree.Let's see what the inspectors can dig up...
1. Think
2. Act
Not the other way around.
This is “the do something” disease.
Western countries, particularly the US are not prepared for the commitment it takes to see these things to the end.
We have pulled out early from every intervention since Vietnam with the same result.
Iraq is begging us to come back, but we are too busy pulling out of Afghanistan and trying to get involved in Syria to handle that.
US involvement is beginning to mean a few decades of trouble ahead for what ever country becomes the next victim.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
We have pulled out early [...] Iraq is begging us to come back, but we are too busy pulling out of Afghanistan and trying to get involved in Syria to handle that.
Eh ... um ... we were heavily invested in Iraq for eight years, at a cost somewhere between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. What exactly were we supposed to do? Make Iraq the 51st state?We have pulled out early [...] Iraq is begging us to come back, but we are too busy pulling out of Afghanistan and trying to get involved in Syria to handle that.
You cite Iraq as a negative example of the US "not see these things to the end"—what end did you have in mind?
For most Americans, the Iraq War is, in fact, a negative example, but not the one you're reaching for.
The fact of the matter is the only way to intervene is to destroy the society so utterly and to occupy and direct it so thoroughly that the entire nation is transformed.
But 'democracy through total war' is a tactic we haven't used for a couple of generations...
But 'democracy through total war' is a tactic we haven't used for a couple of generations...
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Eh ... um ... we were heavily invested in Iraq for eight years, at a cost somewhere between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. What exactly were we supposed to do? Make Iraq the 51st state?
You cite Iraq as a negative example of the US "not see these things to the end"—what end did you have in mind?
For most Americans, the Iraq War is, in fact, a negative example, but not the one you're reaching for.
That is just it! They are all negative examples. There was no peace in Iraq when we left. I am not making it a positive example. Just another failure like all of the rest.Eh ... um ... we were heavily invested in Iraq for eight years, at a cost somewhere between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. What exactly were we supposed to do? Make Iraq the 51st state?
You cite Iraq as a negative example of the US "not see these things to the end"—what end did you have in mind?
For most Americans, the Iraq War is, in fact, a negative example, but not the one you're reaching for.
I only pointed out that they asked for us to come back, it is not that I think we should go. I doubt we would do any better the second time around.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
That is just it! They are all negative examples. There was no peace in Iraq when we left. I am not making it a positive example. Just another failure like all of the rest.
I only pointed out that they asked for us to come back, it is not that I think we should go. I doubt we would do any better the second time around.
So you are negating your own point?That is just it! They are all negative examples. There was no peace in Iraq when we left. I am not making it a positive example. Just another failure like all of the rest.
I only pointed out that they asked for us to come back, it is not that I think we should go. I doubt we would do any better the second time around.
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
So you are negating your own point?
No, I think you just may mist understand what I said.So you are negating your own point?
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
No, I think you just may mist understand what I said.
Maybe you could clarify? You appeared to be arguing that the eight years and trillions of dollars we spend in Iraq were somehow incomplete, or as you phrased it, "We have pulled out early from every intervention."No, I think you just may mist understand what I said.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Maybe you could clarify? You appeared to be arguing that the eight years and trillions of dollars we spend in Iraq were somehow incomplete, or as you phrased it, "We have pulled out early from every intervention."
That is true enough. It was not complete. I didn’t say we should have been there but it was unfinished, just as Afghanistan is unfinished, just as Somalia was unfinished.Maybe you could clarify? You appeared to be arguing that the eight years and trillions of dollars we spend in Iraq were somehow incomplete, or as you phrased it, "We have pulled out early from every intervention."
If you think it is worth going you had better be willing to write a blank check for time, blood, and treasure. Otherwise just keep out.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Maybe you could clarify? You appeared to be arguing that the eight years and trillions of dollars we spend in Iraq were somehow incomplete, or as you phrased it, "We have pulled out early from every intervention."
Lemur this is the most stereotypical American thing I have ever seen you say. So much so it is more caricature of the American tourist then what a typical American is.Maybe you could clarify? You appeared to be arguing that the eight years and trillions of dollars we spend in Iraq were somehow incomplete, or as you phrased it, "We have pulled out early from every intervention."
The amount of money spent does not equate to how successful one is.
Only Results Count (ORC). Were any WMD found? Is Iraq a functioning society be it democracy or dictatorship? Is it more or less likely to spawn hardline fighters, jihadists and terrorists then prior to the invasion of a secular dictatorship that was enemies of Al Qaeda? Did the price of gold go down?
Essentially US spent trillions, years and most importantly lives intervening in another society to only make things worse for that society in respect to making it safer for Americans and its allies. Ten years is not a generation. Intervention had only scratched the surface and despite lots of money and blood the result is a veteran enemy with more training, motivation and members then before intervention.
So unless we get Russia, China and the rest of the UN behind this and a plan to stay for a generation with a new Marshall plan we had better have a better plan then the same that was applied to Iraq.
Of course, the real problem is that the US doesn't have any good options - as far as I can see.
If we keep out, Obama gets to be the President that made us look like a chump to the antagonistic states of the world.
If we go in, we get a mess in Syria.
If we go all-in...*gulp*.
If we keep out, Obama gets to be the President that made us look like a chump to the antagonistic states of the world.
If we go in, we get a mess in Syria.
If we go all-in...*gulp*.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
The amount of money spent does not equate to how successful one is.
You seem to be under the impression that I am saying our Iraqi adventure was a success, or a good idea, or something. You also seem to believe that because I mention time and money that I am ignoring every other reality, including, oh, human death, for example.The amount of money spent does not equate to how successful one is.
Don't really know where you're getting this from; certainly not from anything I have written.
I have been saying that the Iraq War was a dreadful mistake since its inception. I have been saying that we should stay the hell out of Syria consistently.
So ... whatever point you're responding to, I don't think it's one I have actually made.
I'm with Fisherking intervention has not been successfully implemented since WWII. Korea was a draw and US is still there. Vietnam was as far as interventions go a failure. So is Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Intervention requires a lot more time, money and people on the ground.
If we are to go in again it has to be with far more resources then Iraq. More solid intelligence, an over abundance of feet on the ground, stripping all weapons out of the society (as per Japan), Russia and China participatiing.
Also because the last intervention went ten years need to have no Mercs. It's not a short term engagement so put in more permanent infrastructure including most importantly logistics. Don't make it another pork barrel for private contractors.
Intervention requires a lot more time, money and people on the ground.
If we are to go in again it has to be with far more resources then Iraq. More solid intelligence, an over abundance of feet on the ground, stripping all weapons out of the society (as per Japan), Russia and China participatiing.
Also because the last intervention went ten years need to have no Mercs. It's not a short term engagement so put in more permanent infrastructure including most importantly logistics. Don't make it another pork barrel for private contractors.
ffs. Dronebama will probably start aiding the rebels tommorow. Nothing good will come out of this only more misery for the Syrians. Western bombs also kill kids they don't discriminate. I share Fisherkings concern that this could lead to a bigger conflict, Dronebama doesn't even want to talk to Russia wtf. I have no idea what is going on right now and that scares me.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Assuming that it was the Syrian Government flies in the face of reason. They had nothing to win and everything to lose by the use of chemical weapons.
It has been the military and intelligence networks that have kept the politicians in check up to this point but it only seems to have slowed them a bit.
This is insane. It can lead to a wider war. Russia will not sit on its hands.
Yahoo news said in Apr there would be a false flag chemical attack in Syria this summer. Opposition media have reported this twice before, must have got their signals crossed.
It is clearly a set up.
If it's a set up, what does the US goverment gain on playing along? Iraq was fairly easy to see the goal and the mistakes done by the Bush admin, but I'm curious what the Obama admin is estimated to gain by becoming involved from a realpolitical angle.Assuming that it was the Syrian Government flies in the face of reason. They had nothing to win and everything to lose by the use of chemical weapons.
It has been the military and intelligence networks that have kept the politicians in check up to this point but it only seems to have slowed them a bit.
This is insane. It can lead to a wider war. Russia will not sit on its hands.
Yahoo news said in Apr there would be a false flag chemical attack in Syria this summer. Opposition media have reported this twice before, must have got their signals crossed.
It is clearly a set up.
Originally Posted by :
what the Obama admin is estimated to gain by becoming involved from a realpolitical angle.
It's what they might lose: credibility.what the Obama admin is estimated to gain by becoming involved from a realpolitical angle.
Obama proclaimed a "red line" for intervention over chemical weapons, and now he has little choice but to follow through in some capacity. And he had previously announced limited support for rebel groups, so expanding that won't cut it in the international community.
I'm sure Obama's boys are desperately looking for evidence that Assad is not responsible, or even that the attacks were just faked outright. It would take quite a revelation to allow the US to back down with face intact, though.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
I'm curious what the Obama admin is estimated to gain by becoming involved from a realpolitical angle.
Loss of credibility because of speaking before his turn. Yes I am that cynical.I'm curious what the Obama admin is estimated to gain by becoming involved from a realpolitical angle.
Edit: Montie beat me to it
I doubt they are searching hard. It seems like just the opposite.
Cruse Missile strikes only have a tendency to tick people off and make fools of us.
Anyone remember the aspirin factory, the Chinese Embassy, or the bridge loaded with civilians?
Anyone remember the duds that were recovered, giving away technology?
It is obvious no one remembers the billions spent attacking Serbia and the dismal results. After weeks of strikes and the loss of a stealth fighter or two, we managed to destroy about on company’s worth of tanks and another company’s worth of APCs and managed to kill a couple of platoons of infantry. The civilian deaths far outnumbered the military ones. All for the sake of Kosovo. A situation that could be likened to Mexican insurgents taking over New Mexico and declaring independence or Canadian insurgents taking over Maine, and we were upset because they sent in the army to chase them out.
Assad was seen as a reformer, prior to the Arab Spring, but when he cracked down on the protesters he became a devil. I am not saying that he isn’t but what are the guarantees that the rebels won’t be as bad or worse? They have not shown any enlightened ideas in the killing of minorities or those with religious differences.
We also do not know Russia’s intentions. Strikes are an act of war and Russia is a Syrian ally. They could very well strike back against out ships and aircraft, or just aid them by jamming. I doubt they stand by and do nothing. Nor should they.
edit: And yes, the administration is very worried about projecting a weak image.
The US does lack credibility.
But this is a two term president who came in with a Noble Peace Prize and want to be remembered as one of the good guys. This is a hell of a way to do that! NOT!
Cruse Missile strikes only have a tendency to tick people off and make fools of us.
Anyone remember the aspirin factory, the Chinese Embassy, or the bridge loaded with civilians?
Anyone remember the duds that were recovered, giving away technology?
It is obvious no one remembers the billions spent attacking Serbia and the dismal results. After weeks of strikes and the loss of a stealth fighter or two, we managed to destroy about on company’s worth of tanks and another company’s worth of APCs and managed to kill a couple of platoons of infantry. The civilian deaths far outnumbered the military ones. All for the sake of Kosovo. A situation that could be likened to Mexican insurgents taking over New Mexico and declaring independence or Canadian insurgents taking over Maine, and we were upset because they sent in the army to chase them out.
Assad was seen as a reformer, prior to the Arab Spring, but when he cracked down on the protesters he became a devil. I am not saying that he isn’t but what are the guarantees that the rebels won’t be as bad or worse? They have not shown any enlightened ideas in the killing of minorities or those with religious differences.
We also do not know Russia’s intentions. Strikes are an act of war and Russia is a Syrian ally. They could very well strike back against out ships and aircraft, or just aid them by jamming. I doubt they stand by and do nothing. Nor should they.
edit: And yes, the administration is very worried about projecting a weak image.
The US does lack credibility.
But this is a two term president who came in with a Noble Peace Prize and want to be remembered as one of the good guys. This is a hell of a way to do that! NOT!
On the morning news, after reporting on US Foreign Policy, the German Commentator remarked that the US has not consistent foreign policy…
It is just much too true.
It is just much too true.
What I am missing in this discussion is the subtle game of high diplomatic stakes being played here, IMO. That is, the U.S. (and France, and the UK, and Turkey, and the Arab League, all independently, as most of you seem to forget in this U.S.-centered discussion) are raising the stakes with regards to Russia (and China by extension) by threatening to attack Syria more and more. What I think Washington is doing is creating an international climate of Western intervention, from which it is becoming harder to back down from with each passing day. In other words, Obama, Hollande, Cameron, Erdogan and the Saudis are implying with increasing vehemence (backed up even by Germany now) that they'll even go around the UN if they have to. This puts immense pressure on Moscow to bend and allow the UNSC to pass a resolution authorizing a punitive attack. In so doing they're banking on the assumption that Moscow doesn't want a break with the West over this. With the U.S. alone, maybe, but not with the whole West, including Germany. So I think they're trying to create a climate where a "Libya lite" resolution can be passed, but with a much more hardball diplomatic game.
The problem, of course, is: what if Russia doesn't blink? Then France, England, USA etc. have maneuvered themselves into a position from which they can't realistically back down anymore, without losing a lot of face. They've created an international situation in which backing down will create exactly what they're warning for right now: a green light for the use of chemical weapons. A self-fulfilling prophecy, which nobody wants, and which would force the West's hand if Russia doesn't allow the UNSC sanction to go through.
Those are the high stakes. They flow from the international norm, shared among virtually all countries, proscribing the use of WMDs. Playing up this norm without defending it would damage it, which of course is highly undesirable, and which makes the "no intervention" option quite unlikely by now, I think. It is now a question of UN-sanctioned intervention or no, not intervention or no.
P.S. I wouldn't worry about any military role for Russia (or Iran) in opposing intervention. Nobody in Moscow is prepared to defend anything except their own borders. Russia won't stick its neck out to try and save Assad's hide, not with the full force of NATO coming down on him.
The problem, of course, is: what if Russia doesn't blink? Then France, England, USA etc. have maneuvered themselves into a position from which they can't realistically back down anymore, without losing a lot of face. They've created an international situation in which backing down will create exactly what they're warning for right now: a green light for the use of chemical weapons. A self-fulfilling prophecy, which nobody wants, and which would force the West's hand if Russia doesn't allow the UNSC sanction to go through.
Those are the high stakes. They flow from the international norm, shared among virtually all countries, proscribing the use of WMDs. Playing up this norm without defending it would damage it, which of course is highly undesirable, and which makes the "no intervention" option quite unlikely by now, I think. It is now a question of UN-sanctioned intervention or no, not intervention or no.
P.S. I wouldn't worry about any military role for Russia (or Iran) in opposing intervention. Nobody in Moscow is prepared to defend anything except their own borders. Russia won't stick its neck out to try and save Assad's hide, not with the full force of NATO coming down on him.
Afghanistan happened after the Talliban stopped all heroin production. Now, under US occupation and inlfuence, the heroin production is at an all-time high. Don't even get me started on 9/11, I think even the majority of US citizens nowadays feel there is something fishy about it. Only 1 in 4 beleive the talliban did it.
Iraq happened for complex reasons, oil being the primary one but also because it is a threat to Israel, because it has some very important archeological sites (believe it or not) and that whole chemical weapons scare was a hoax as was revealed. Now I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a sodomizing evil despot, but I'm saying that major foreign policy decision are not made because "let's bring liberty, freedom, democracy and Mcdonalds for the Iraqui people". Baghdad hadn't even fallen yet when tankers for the already pre-contracted oil companies came to leech from Iraq. I know a guy who was a military surgeon stationed in Kerbalah, so I have some knowledge of what is going on. He told me that the US military was so well equipped, they could have ended this war in 6 months, but they dragged it out because they needed an excuse to keep the land occulied and contine with the oil theft.
Libya happened after Gaddafi had ideas to revive the golden dinar and also because of its oil. Can't have someone messing with the hegemony of the all mighty worthless green paper printed by the "federal" reserve.
Egypt has been the object of CIA/Mossad interests for years now, and has been thoroughly destabilized. The latest events in Egypt are products of the funding and planning provided by these agencies and mean to remove the muslim threat from the second largest and one of the scariest neighbors of Israel.
Syria is a pure 100% product of the efforts of western and Israeli agents. The mercs who are the "rebels/protesters/freeDUHm fighters" have been paid for and equipped by the allies. Hell, they even admitted to supplying them with weapons. This gas attack everyone is talking about now was done by the rebels and pinned on the government, because you know what? There is no such thing as independent and objective western media (not that the eastern meida is much better). They force feed their people bullshit and most eat it with an appetite and like it. Some even get mad when they are being told the truth.
Now after a lot of machinatins, the retards from our Bulgarian government blamed Hizbualh for the suicide bomber attack at the Burgas airport. This made the Eu finalyl cave to Israeli/US (the same thing basically) demands to catalogue Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Lebanon is next and maybe they were thinking of just smashing Syria and Lebanon together for the sake of speed and practicality. Hezbollah's primary ideologies: Shia Islamism, Anti-imperialism, Anti-Zionism. They ar ethe leading party in Lebanon.
Iran is a big bite to chew but they have been prepped for some years now. Nuclear armament, threats, misinformation spewing from the corrupt media. It's funny how Israel made their own nukes and didn't ask the big 5 for permition, but when Iran does it suddenly we're talking full scale war.
See the pattern? Any country which:
1. Has valuable natural resources that can be exploited
2. Does not conform to the western banking elite's policy of slavery by debt and mindles consumption
3. Is close to and/or a threat to Israel
has to be either directly invaded or destabilized trough agents and paid mercenaries and "freedom protesters"
However, as the west becomes more and more greedy and obnoxious they will only stregthen the opposion in the face of Russia/China. Those two don't want to be colonized and we're possibly looking at WW3 if push comes to shove in the middle east.
Iraq happened for complex reasons, oil being the primary one but also because it is a threat to Israel, because it has some very important archeological sites (believe it or not) and that whole chemical weapons scare was a hoax as was revealed. Now I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a sodomizing evil despot, but I'm saying that major foreign policy decision are not made because "let's bring liberty, freedom, democracy and Mcdonalds for the Iraqui people". Baghdad hadn't even fallen yet when tankers for the already pre-contracted oil companies came to leech from Iraq. I know a guy who was a military surgeon stationed in Kerbalah, so I have some knowledge of what is going on. He told me that the US military was so well equipped, they could have ended this war in 6 months, but they dragged it out because they needed an excuse to keep the land occulied and contine with the oil theft.
Libya happened after Gaddafi had ideas to revive the golden dinar and also because of its oil. Can't have someone messing with the hegemony of the all mighty worthless green paper printed by the "federal" reserve.
Egypt has been the object of CIA/Mossad interests for years now, and has been thoroughly destabilized. The latest events in Egypt are products of the funding and planning provided by these agencies and mean to remove the muslim threat from the second largest and one of the scariest neighbors of Israel.
Syria is a pure 100% product of the efforts of western and Israeli agents. The mercs who are the "rebels/protesters/freeDUHm fighters" have been paid for and equipped by the allies. Hell, they even admitted to supplying them with weapons. This gas attack everyone is talking about now was done by the rebels and pinned on the government, because you know what? There is no such thing as independent and objective western media (not that the eastern meida is much better). They force feed their people bullshit and most eat it with an appetite and like it. Some even get mad when they are being told the truth.
Now after a lot of machinatins, the retards from our Bulgarian government blamed Hizbualh for the suicide bomber attack at the Burgas airport. This made the Eu finalyl cave to Israeli/US (the same thing basically) demands to catalogue Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Lebanon is next and maybe they were thinking of just smashing Syria and Lebanon together for the sake of speed and practicality. Hezbollah's primary ideologies: Shia Islamism, Anti-imperialism, Anti-Zionism. They ar ethe leading party in Lebanon.
Iran is a big bite to chew but they have been prepped for some years now. Nuclear armament, threats, misinformation spewing from the corrupt media. It's funny how Israel made their own nukes and didn't ask the big 5 for permition, but when Iran does it suddenly we're talking full scale war.
See the pattern? Any country which:
1. Has valuable natural resources that can be exploited
2. Does not conform to the western banking elite's policy of slavery by debt and mindles consumption
3. Is close to and/or a threat to Israel
has to be either directly invaded or destabilized trough agents and paid mercenaries and "freedom protesters"
However, as the west becomes more and more greedy and obnoxious they will only stregthen the opposion in the face of Russia/China. Those two don't want to be colonized and we're possibly looking at WW3 if push comes to shove in the middle east.
Afghanistan happened after the Talliban stopped all heroin production. Now, under US occupation and inlfuence, the heroin production is at an all-time high. Don't even get me started on 9/11, I think even the majority of US citizens nowadays feel there is something fishy about it. Only 1 in 4 beleive the talliban did it.
Little correction there, I don't know who made the polls but nobody ever said the Taliban did it. They supposedly fascilitated training camps. How much of that is true I don't know but the Taliban itself stands unaccused of actually having a hand in it
Little correction there, I don't know who made the polls but nobody ever said the Taliban did it. They supposedly fascilitated training camps. How much of that is true I don't know but the Taliban itself stands unaccused of actually having a hand in it
I agree with Monty and The Wizard.
Syria is not interesting; not a hill to die on from a foreign policy perspective. But they have made it into one.
Will they double down on stupidity or lose face; history seems to point to doubling down.
The real foreign policy failure was painting themselves into the corner on an issue so trivial to interests.
Of course that might just be it.
The object may be to embarrass Russia.
Which is a powerful statement from the PoV of international dick-swinging; but is it worth the trouble.
Syria is not interesting; not a hill to die on from a foreign policy perspective. But they have made it into one.
Will they double down on stupidity or lose face; history seems to point to doubling down.
The real foreign policy failure was painting themselves into the corner on an issue so trivial to interests.
Of course that might just be it.
The object may be to embarrass Russia.
Which is a powerful statement from the PoV of international dick-swinging; but is it worth the trouble.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO