Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Russia is supporting the legitimate government and not arming terror groups. The US is supporting terror activities against the government.
Russia has a long standing relationship with Syria, the US does not. Syria invited Russia, the US was not invited. Syria is near Russia and an Islamic state can easily spread violence through Turkey's porous border into Russia's fragile Islamic Caucasus area, Syria is on the other side of the world from the US and is supporting these terrorists.
Only someone insane would support such arming of terror groups to prolong a war, at the expense of lives, for some wayward political objective.
Russia is supporting--and engaging in--war crimes. The siege of Aleppo by Russia and Syria involved the wanton destruction of a city full of civilians. Syria has used banned weapons, including chemical weapons. Russia is not engaged in a noble fight on behalf of a legitimate government. It is supporting a criminal government in a brutal civil war.
As for US armament of anti-Assad rebels: does this include the Kurds, fighting in the north of Syria as part of a region-wide effort for a Kurdish State & long backed by the US? That would be an abrupt change in US policy with potential reverberations in Iraq & Turkey.
You mean like France helping the "terror groups" in America fight against the government (England). You can call them terror groups all day long if it makes you feel better. Assad is a genocidal maniac, which is just fine and dandy with you.
That was an independence movement, the US colonies were not attempting to take England and install a new government. The colonies were also just that, colonies, and not England itself.
It does not make me feel better, the US is the one who labels who ever terror groups, fact is they are engaged in terror operations, it just happens that the US (at this time) dislikes Assad more.
Assad is just fine with me, the people are more than welcomed to rebel against him, however, the US should stay out if it. If the US is in it because of some concern about human life, than they should support Assad so the war is over quicker, thus less lives loss.
The "rebels" are nothing but radical Islamic terrorists, setting out to get a piece of the pie. You act as they are a bunch of nuns wanting to install some wonderful democracy, no, they want to be the dictator instead of Assad, that is all. No different than the Bolsheviks who did not want to replace the tsar and bring peace and harmony in Russia, they wanted to be the ones in charge plain and simple.
Why are you praising Russia for doing the right thing, and US is doing the wrong thing, when both are doing the same thing (being militarily involved in the same exact country)? Sure seems like you always see US as the bad guy, and Russia the good guy.
Put down the vodka take a deep breath and look at what you just wrote...
Can you comprehend how irrational that sounds? Never mind how dumb?
If Russia wants to throw their men into a meat grinder to exterminate Johnny jihad let them.
A pull out and stop supply would be the start.
Now. Unless you hold stock in Raytheon how can you see this as a threat or a loss for America?
You're trying oh so hard to push that Russian narrative it's past the point of funny anymore, delusional and possibly deranged even. You've made no valid point or argument other than you either hold stock in defense industries or you're only concerned about Muh Russia.
It is a non issue. Stop stoking the flames for another cold war, we were past that point. One thing you Russian conspiracy theorists acknowledge yet in the next breath fail to comprehend is. Putin. He's the Russian honey badger. He don't give a sh..
That said, do you want WW3?
Is there something of such tremendous value in Syria we should be involved and intervening in?
What exactly is your point other than boo hoo wah Russia Rootin Tootin Putin?
You and maybe 2 others are in the minority here thinking this is a major loss for America and a win to Russia... how? Enlighten us. How is Russia using Russias forces and assets in Syria against isis a bad thing for us? Other than ruin obama and McCains legacy... how Enlighten us.
Is there some oil reserve under that sand worth 100s of trillions of dollars?
Are you screwed on defense industry stocks?
Is there some rare element-unobtanium buried over there that you don't want the Russians to get?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You must be thinking I am Republican, since they are more eager to use military force, but I am independent. I do not favor sending US occupation troops to other countries like we did in Iraq. I believe limited use like air power and helping our allies with training and weapons. Like Hareetz said, the hard-left celebrates this move (and Russians, of course...and Trump supporters).
I think you're a fool focused on Russia conspiracy theories or someone who is afraid stock prices in the defense industry will drop and lose money.
Russia is supporting--and engaging in--war crimes. The siege of Aleppo by Russia and Syria involved the wanton destruction of a city full of civilians. Syria has used banned weapons, including chemical weapons. Russia is not engaged in a noble fight on behalf of a legitimate government. It is supporting a criminal government in a brutal civil war.
As for US armament of anti-Assad rebels: does this include the Kurds, fighting in the north of Syria as part of a region-wide effort for a Kurdish State & long backed by the US? That would be an abrupt change in US policy with potential reverberations in Iraq & Turkey.
The US has committed plenty of war crimes as well, during its entire existence as a country. If the US is so concerned, then perhaps we should not be dropping 1000lbs bombs on apartment buildings and things like that. Perhaps we should not be arming terror groups to assist in prolonging the war year after year. Perhaps the US should provide targeting data and precision munitions to Assad so he hits terrorists instead of civilians. As for chemical weapons, who cares, the US dropped two nukes, nothing will top that, one US bomb in Mosul has killed more civilians than any Syrian chemical attack.
You like others seem to think these "rebels" are some noble people, set forth on bringing harmony to Syria, when in fact they just want to be the brutal dictator. But of course the US sides with dictators like the Saudi king, so as long they toe the US line.
Edit; yes, that includes the Kurds, which Turkey has already raised objections over.
You mean like France helping the "terror groups" in America fight against the government (England). You can call them terror groups all day long if it makes you feel better. Assad is a genocidal maniac, which is just fine and dandy with you.
LOL
Proof after birth will manifest live and function...
A Free Syrian Army (FSA) commander said the U.S. decision risked triggering the collapse of the moderate opposition, which would benefit President Bashar al-Assad and jihadists linked to al Qaeda that have long sought to extinguish more moderate groups.
"We heard nothing about this," said an opposition official familiar with the program, describing the decision as a complete surprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
McCain: 'If these reports are true, the administration is playing right into the hands of Vladimir Putin,' the Armed Services Committee chairman said in a statement.
I was going to respond to all of the above garbage...but then I read this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You mean like France helping the "terror groups" in America fight against the government (England). You can call them terror groups all day long if it makes you feel better. Assad is a genocidal maniac, which is just fine and dandy with you.
This shows how completely incapable of rational thought you are. Its no use responding to anything you say if you think ISIS = American revolution.
The US has committed plenty of war crimes as well, during its entire existence as a country. If the US is so concerned, then perhaps we should not be dropping 1000lbs bombs on apartment buildings and things like that. Perhaps we should not be arming terror groups to assist in prolonging the war year after year. Perhaps the US should provide targeting data and precision munitions to Assad so he hits terrorists instead of civilians. As for chemical weapons, who cares, the US dropped two nukes, nothing will top that, one US bomb in Mosul has killed more civilians than any Syrian chemical attack.
You like others seem to think these "rebels" are some noble people, set forth on bringing harmony to Syria, when in fact they just want to be the brutal dictator. But of course the US sides with dictators like the Saudi king, so as long they toe the US line.
Edit; yes, that includes the Kurds, which Turkey has already raised objections over.
US war crimes are not an excuse for Russian and Syrian war crimes.
Your assertion about my views on the rebels is a straw man. There are at least a half dozen different rebel groups in Syria. You cannot make a blanket statement about their aims because their aims vary.
The US has long been a supporter of Kurds in Iraq. Kurds in Iraq see themselves as part of one people spanning the borders of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. The US had not publicly supported Kurds beyond Iraq until the Syrian Civil War. During the Syrian Civil War, the US partnered with Kurdish rebels in northern Syria (which makes Turkey very unhappy--Turkey is unhappy about US support for Kurds in Iraq, too).
US war crimes are not an excuse for Russian and Syrian war crimes.
Your assertion about my views on the rebels is a straw man. There are at least a half dozen different rebel groups in Syria. You cannot make a blanket statement about their aims because their aims vary.
The US has long been a supporter of Kurds in Iraq. Kurds in Iraq see themselves as part of one people spanning the borders of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. The US had not publicly supported Kurds beyond Iraq until the Syrian Civil War. During the Syrian Civil War, the US partnered with Kurdish rebels in northern Syria (which makes Turkey very unhappy--Turkey is unhappy about US support for Kurds in Iraq, too).
Lol, no they have not. Hell, the US even assisted Saddam with the chemical attack on them. The US uses them then tosses them to the side when done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
