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.
Now; but not when we got ourselves involved in the Middle East. Then we were afraid that the plug could be pulled at any time. That is what got us into this mess and Syria is still paying the price today.
Depends on when you want to start the clock on getting involved in the Middle East.
And the oil canard is always a lazy answer. Israel in 48 had zip to do with oil. Iran in the 50's was geopolitical in regards to soviet containment. Iran-Iraq late 70's into the 80's was dual national embarrassment and keeping, or preventing, another embargo. Post 9-11 was a truncated terrorism prevention measure.
Not quite, usually American bombings are a part of a larger scheme involving sticks and many carrots to attempt to achieve certain outcomes. Russians just bomb for PR sake domestic and international, they cannot afford carrots nor do they have ideology to sell, much unlike ussr or usa for that matter.
I was reading some comments on another forum and many on the left are upset at those in western countries wanting to forge good relations with Russia and many were saying Russia's actions in Syria were "horrible" "despicable" "evil" etc. etc.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Russia basically just destroying ISIS and friends? Or is there something else?
You mean the left is acting like the right has been acting for the last 70 years? Actually the right and left have been unified in opposing USSR/Russia.
Which Western countries are trying to forge good relations with Russia? I can't think of any.
Just because Donald Trump is willing to surrender the world to Russia, doesn't mean other countries are willing.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 11-28-2016 at 06:44 AM..
They've been killing for hundreds of years. You don't study history?
Who wasnt killing for hundreds of years? But lets stick to the stateless terrorism, it is a relatively recent phenomenon. How does it compare with state terrorism?
The retreating Iraqi army from Kuwait on the highway of death? Noce
Yes; but some were not Iraqi army. We could say the same about when we had one retrofitted battleship lob one ton shells into Lebanon during Reagan's years. Bombs are not selective; the blast radius and shrapnel will kill some distance from the point of impact and that is saying that the bombs land where we want them to land. There are always civilian casualties; you cannot escape it even with 'smart' weapons.
Yes; but some were not Iraqi army. We could say the same about when we had one retrofitted battleship lob one ton shells into Lebanon during Reagan's years. Bombs are not selective; the blast radius and shrapnel will kill some distance from the point of impact and that is saying that the bombs land where we want them to land. There are always civilian casualties; you cannot escape it even with 'smart' weapons.
Duh... what's your point, war sucks? Yep. A reason we should always declare war and repeal war powers act. Have the actual debate so all the back home criticism is muted, full military might is utilized... or it's not used at all. Civilians will always die.
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.
