US hypocrisy

[toomuchtime_]

Even if all that's true, it does nothing to detract from Assad's atrocities or Putin's, or the comparisons to our actions.

OK. Let's pretend. We remove Assad. Then we have a fractured country and the next man in charge tortured and kills civilians. Do we go back and drop more humanitarian bombs? We haven't in Libya. Nor in Somalia. We go in and remove one bad guy and an even worse baddie takes over. But we are done. We did our Humanitarian part right?

That's the problem with this line of thought. If we remove Assad we are responsible for what happens next. Just as we are with Libya.

We never talk about what comes after. We just want a limited goal. Once we have our goal we declare victory and pat ourselves on the back as we cheer our awesomeness.

What comes next matters too. Patting ourselves on the back for making it worse isn't a plan.

I didn't comment on that. I merely commented on the absurdity, and frankly insult to men and women who are willing to die for us, in comparing Assad and Putin's actions to those our country has taken. Not that we're perfect. But even in WWII we only fire bombed when it was the last resort to destroy military targets. It was never just to kill civilians to kill them. The atom bombs resulted in far fewer Japanese being killed than an invasion would have caused, and more importantly somewhere a million US killed and wounded was avoided.

At this point in Syria, I think the reality will be a partition. Iraq is religiously tied to Assad. the Kurds are not, but there's Turkey. And there are still a few anti Assad sunni who are not ISIS

Your knowledge of history is rather lacking. The plan for Dresdin was to kill the rescue workers. The first raid would be followed by a second raid three hours later just as rescue operations would be in full swing. The raid was delayed until the weather was considered perfect for the firestorm that was envisioned. The Memo to the British airmen who carried out the attack listed impressing upon the Russians the capability of British Airpower as one of the goals.

Was killing rescue workers of military necessity? Explain how impressing the Russians aided in defeating the Nazi's.

As for those who fight and risk death for this nation. You are welcome. I served nine years in the US Army including four years with the 82nd Airborne Division. Speaking as a soldier I can say I was and am willing to risk my life to defend the nation. However there is no strategic value to deposing Assad. Contrary to the fiction there is no such thing as a moderate jihadist.

I don't hate the country. I want it to be better than it is. Before we can improve we have to honestly assess where we are. Building upon a foundation of propaganda does nothing but take us further down a road we have no business being on in the first place.

Oh and the civil war would have had a hard time getting going without the weapons we provided the so called moderate jihadist forces.

CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'

You want to believe we have, and continue to do the right thing. We haven't. We may be less bad but is that what we stand for?

And now on top of all the things, real and imaginary you think the US did, you want us to ignore, essentially endorse Assad's atrocities. If the US is as evil as you claim, how evil does that make you?

Tell me why Syria is so awful we have to act but Nigeria, Somalia, Myanmar, Libya, and dozens of others aren't worthy of our attention?

There is no shortage of suffering. Ethnic cleansing will happen again this year. Women and girls will be raped. Children will be murdered. What makes Syrian children more worthy of our attention than the kids in Libya? Where are the humanitarian bombs for the ethnic minority in Myanmar?

The war in Syria would have ended years ago if we were not supplying the terrorists with weapons and advisors. Or at least would be minor and contained.

Let's be honest for a moment. Assad and the Russians are going to win sooner or later without far more active roles for our military. In other words deploying us troops for combat in Syria. The group we support, the FSA is the smallest of the "Rebel" factions. They have exactly zero chance of winning. If Assad falls, ISIS or Nursa Front, the Al Queda group in Syria will win. That would not be good for the Syrians, the region, or us. Assad is bad, they are worse.

Now, let's pretend we go in with divisions of troops and conquer the country and don't end up in a shooting war with the Russians. I'm not sure how that happens, our plan for that seems to be the idea that the Russians would not dare fight us. Personally, I think they would dare. But let's pretend that the Russians slink home terrified of our troops and we take the country. Then what? The war against ISIS and Nursa Front means the same civilians we are beating our breast about now get bombed by us and written off as collateral damage in our fight.

We won't stay for years or decades which is what would be needed. Like Iraq we will declare victory and leave and the crap would start up again.

Assad is bad. I have never said anything else. There is no great democratic light that hopes to give power to the people. It is just more dictators with dreams of power over the masses. They are all at least as bad as Assad, and again honestly speaking here, much worse.

Your premises are all wrong. The US has played such a minor role in Syria it is bizarre to assert the war would have been over if not for us. Second, Assad and Russia cannot win in the sense of having control of all of Syria. The Russian bombing has saved Assad from losing the war, but he will never control more than about a third of Syria, the Alawite enclave along the coast. If Russia ever stops bombing, the rebels will begin advancing on Damascus again.

There is no reason to talk about US boots on the ground or ISIS taking over. Once Russia abandons Assad, he will fall, and then the US can use the model it is employing in Iraq to take care of ISIS without risking American lives.

 

[SavannahMann]

OK. Let's pretend. We remove Assad. Then we have a fractured country and the next man in charge tortured and kills civilians. Do we go back and drop more humanitarian bombs? We haven't in Libya. Nor in Somalia. We go in and remove one bad guy and an even worse baddie takes over. But we are done. We did our Humanitarian part right?

That's the problem with this line of thought. If we remove Assad we are responsible for what happens next. Just as we are with Libya.

We never talk about what comes after. We just want a limited goal. Once we have our goal we declare victory and pat ourselves on the back as we cheer our awesomeness.

What comes next matters too. Patting ourselves on the back for making it worse isn't a plan.

I didn't comment on that. I merely commented on the absurdity, and frankly insult to men and women who are willing to die for us, in comparing Assad and Putin's actions to those our country has taken. Not that we're perfect. But even in WWII we only fire bombed when it was the last resort to destroy military targets. It was never just to kill civilians to kill them. The atom bombs resulted in far fewer Japanese being killed than an invasion would have caused, and more importantly somewhere a million US killed and wounded was avoided.

At this point in Syria, I think the reality will be a partition. Iraq is religiously tied to Assad. the Kurds are not, but there's Turkey. And there are still a few anti Assad sunni who are not ISIS

Your knowledge of history is rather lacking. The plan for Dresdin was to kill the rescue workers. The first raid would be followed by a second raid three hours later just as rescue operations would be in full swing. The raid was delayed until the weather was considered perfect for the firestorm that was envisioned. The Memo to the British airmen who carried out the attack listed impressing upon the Russians the capability of British Airpower as one of the goals.

Was killing rescue workers of military necessity? Explain how impressing the Russians aided in defeating the Nazi's.

As for those who fight and risk death for this nation. You are welcome. I served nine years in the US Army including four years with the 82nd Airborne Division. Speaking as a soldier I can say I was and am willing to risk my life to defend the nation. However there is no strategic value to deposing Assad. Contrary to the fiction there is no such thing as a moderate jihadist.

I don't hate the country. I want it to be better than it is. Before we can improve we have to honestly assess where we are. Building upon a foundation of propaganda does nothing but take us further down a road we have no business being on in the first place.

Oh and the civil war would have had a hard time getting going without the weapons we provided the so called moderate jihadist forces.

CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'

You want to believe we have, and continue to do the right thing. We haven't. We may be less bad but is that what we stand for?

And now on top of all the things, real and imaginary you think the US did, you want us to ignore, essentially endorse Assad's atrocities. If the US is as evil as you claim, how evil does that make you?

Tell me why Syria is so awful we have to act but Nigeria, Somalia, Myanmar, Libya, and dozens of others aren't worthy of our attention?

There is no shortage of suffering. Ethnic cleansing will happen again this year. Women and girls will be raped. Children will be murdered. What makes Syrian children more worthy of our attention than the kids in Libya? Where are the humanitarian bombs for the ethnic minority in Myanmar?

The war in Syria would have ended years ago if we were not supplying the terrorists with weapons and advisors. Or at least would be minor and contained.

Let's be honest for a moment. Assad and the Russians are going to win sooner or later without far more active roles for our military. In other words deploying us troops for combat in Syria. The group we support, the FSA is the smallest of the "Rebel" factions. They have exactly zero chance of winning. If Assad falls, ISIS or Nursa Front, the Al Queda group in Syria will win. That would not be good for the Syrians, the region, or us. Assad is bad, they are worse.

Now, let's pretend we go in with divisions of troops and conquer the country and don't end up in a shooting war with the Russians. I'm not sure how that happens, our plan for that seems to be the idea that the Russians would not dare fight us. Personally, I think they would dare. But let's pretend that the Russians slink home terrified of our troops and we take the country. Then what? The war against ISIS and Nursa Front means the same civilians we are beating our breast about now get bombed by us and written off as collateral damage in our fight.

We won't stay for years or decades which is what would be needed. Like Iraq we will declare victory and leave and the crap would start up again.

Assad is bad. I have never said anything else. There is no great democratic light that hopes to give power to the people. It is just more dictators with dreams of power over the masses. They are all at least as bad as Assad, and again honestly speaking here, much worse.

Your premises are all wrong. The US has played such a minor role in Syria it is bizarre to assert the war would have been over if not for us. Second, Assad and Russia cannot win in the sense of having control of all of Syria. The Russian bombing has saved Assad from losing the war, but he will never control more than about a third of Syria, the Alawite enclave along the coast. If Russia ever stops bombing, the rebels will begin advancing on Damascus again.

There is no reason to talk about US boots on the ground or ISIS taking over. Once Russia abandons Assad, he will fall, and then the US can use the model it is employing in Iraq to take care of ISIS without risking American lives.

ISIS will win in Syria if Russia stops bombing. Who do you think the Rebels are?

Remember that Al Nusra is the Al Queda branch in Syria. So if Assad loses, ISIS wins. Why give ISIS their own country?

The premise we should be using is this. First do no harm. Let's say you have a friend with a wicked gash on his head. It is bleeding like hell. You can stop the bleeding by using a tourniquet, and the bleeding will stop. It will also kill him as you strangle your friend.

Getting rid of Assad puts ISIS as the most likely victors, with Al Queda as a strong second favorite. Now tell me how things improve with either of those loonies in charge? FSA is the smallest and weakest group of them all.

We have been supplying ISIS. Their weapons have been bought by us. Now I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment but even I have to admit that providing rocket launchers to Terrorists isn't exactly a good idea.

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA

That story tells of rebel faction fighting each other, and both sides were armed by us. I get that you want to do something. But don't make it worse. If someone had a realistic plan that ended up with something better for Syria I'd be willing to listen, and perhaps even support it. They don't. All they have is this nonsense about having to do something.

My friend is on fire. I have to do something. I grab a shovel and start beating the flames out. Now the fire may be out, and in addition to the burns suffered by my friend he has several broken bones and multiple contusions. It can't really be said that I have helped my friend. I doubt that you would want me to help.

The good guys aren't going to win. So we have to choose the least bad, like in every election. The Libertarian candidate may speak a lot of sense, but he doesn't stand a chance. Realistically you have three options. Assad, ISIS, or Al Queda. Dictator, terrorist, or even worse terrorist. Who do you choose?

Seriously. I want to hear who you choose. The FSA has a reduce with the larger Al Queda force. The FSA is the smallest of the factions. ISIS is funded with stolen oil, and has the best cash flow because of that. So it is more likely they will win if we push Assad out. Is that what you want?

There is no good choice.

 

[Moonglow]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

It's not about right or wrong, moral or immoral, it's about control, control by a govt...To be able to dictate to the world how the game is to be played and who is allowed to break the rules and not be punished....It's how the USA operates, from the top down to the bottom...

 

[FJO]

Barry and the democrats raised hell over the Fake News conspiracy Theory that Russia 'hacked the election', demonizing them for doing so - something Barry himself said happens all the time - AFTER Barry had tried to alter 4 nation's governments himself:
- Egypt, an ally: Helped oust Mubarak and replace him with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood
- Libya: Helped Al Qaeda murder and replace Gaddafi
- Israel, an ally: Used tax dollars to try to oust Netanyahu
- Syria: Made it his foreign policy to inject himself into their civil war / government to oust their President

Great thread....America's cup of hypocrisy floweth over.

ALL US presidents are war criminals since pretty much Wilson onwards. EASILY since Roosevelt on. This is not a partisan issue.

It is not an issue at all. It's pure bullshit. You're not a partisan in the sense of being a Democrat or a Republican, you're just anti American.

Anti American GOVERNMENT yes. Plus being an "american" means nothing....ANYONE can be an American. Not everyone can be a White Man or a Southerner.

Were you anti American GOVERNMENT from 2009 till 2017? Just wondering?

Then as well as 2000-2008 and 1992-1999 all the way back until I was born...hell I even despise what I have read about governments BEFORE I was born.

So, three or more decades of politically induced suffering and you are still in America?

The wall has not been built yet, so OUT is as easy as IN.

Go for it!

 

[frigidweirdo]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

Well, isn't this just typical of the US?

Basically helped a coup d'etat using a group whose title suggested they promoted democracy, but were attempting to get rid of the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, when the US president wasn't elected with the majority of the voters.

Also a country that supported POL POT....

 

[frigidweirdo]

ALL US presidents are war criminals since pretty much Wilson onwards. EASILY since Roosevelt on. This is not a partisan issue.

It is not an issue at all. It's pure bullshit. You're not a partisan in the sense of being a Democrat or a Republican, you're just anti American.

Anti American GOVERNMENT yes. Plus being an "american" means nothing....ANYONE can be an American. Not everyone can be a White Man or a Southerner.

Were you anti American GOVERNMENT from 2009 till 2017? Just wondering?

Then as well as 2000-2008 and 1992-1999 all the way back until I was born...hell I even despise what I have read about governments BEFORE I was born.

So, three or more decades of politically induced suffering and you are still in America?

The wall has not been built yet, so OUT is as easy as IN.

Go for it!

"There's a problem in the country"

"Well you can fuck off then, can't you?"

That's how America solves its problems...

 

[FJO]

It is not an issue at all. It's pure bullshit. You're not a partisan in the sense of being a Democrat or a Republican, you're just anti American.

Anti American GOVERNMENT yes. Plus being an "american" means nothing....ANYONE can be an American. Not everyone can be a White Man or a Southerner.

Were you anti American GOVERNMENT from 2009 till 2017? Just wondering?

Then as well as 2000-2008 and 1992-1999 all the way back until I was born...hell I even despise what I have read about governments BEFORE I was born.

So, three or more decades of politically induced suffering and you are still in America?

The wall has not been built yet, so OUT is as easy as IN.

Go for it!

"There's a problem in the country"

"Well you can fuck off then, can't you?"

That's how America solves its problems...

Let, nay, ENCOURAGE the malcontent leave.

Problem solved.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Anti American GOVERNMENT yes. Plus being an "american" means nothing....ANYONE can be an American. Not everyone can be a White Man or a Southerner.

Were you anti American GOVERNMENT from 2009 till 2017? Just wondering?

Then as well as 2000-2008 and 1992-1999 all the way back until I was born...hell I even despise what I have read about governments BEFORE I was born.

So, three or more decades of politically induced suffering and you are still in America?

The wall has not been built yet, so OUT is as easy as IN.

Go for it!

"There's a problem in the country"

"Well you can fuck off then, can't you?"

That's how America solves its problems...

Let, nay, ENCOURAGE the malcontent leave.

Problem solved.

But, that's the problem, the problem hasn't been solved just because the people who know there's a problem have gone.

 

[FJO]

Were you anti American GOVERNMENT from 2009 till 2017? Just wondering?

Then as well as 2000-2008 and 1992-1999 all the way back until I was born...hell I even despise what I have read about governments BEFORE I was born.

So, three or more decades of politically induced suffering and you are still in America?

The wall has not been built yet, so OUT is as easy as IN.

Go for it!

"There's a problem in the country"

"Well you can fuck off then, can't you?"

That's how America solves its problems...

Let, nay, ENCOURAGE the malcontent leave.

Problem solved.

But, that's the problem, the problem hasn't been solved just because the people who know there's a problem have gone.

No problem for the people who remain. Problem was the ones who left.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then as well as 2000-2008 and 1992-1999 all the way back until I was born...hell I even despise what I have read about governments BEFORE I was born.

So, three or more decades of politically induced suffering and you are still in America?

The wall has not been built yet, so OUT is as easy as IN.

Go for it!

"There's a problem in the country"

"Well you can fuck off then, can't you?"

That's how America solves its problems...

Let, nay, ENCOURAGE the malcontent leave.

Problem solved.

But, that's the problem, the problem hasn't been solved just because the people who know there's a problem have gone.

No problem for the people who remain. Problem was the ones who left.

Well, all I can say is that I wish I saw things as simply as you do. Problem is, things aren't that simple.

 

[FJO]

So, three or more decades of politically induced suffering and you are still in America?

The wall has not been built yet, so OUT is as easy as IN.

Go for it!

"There's a problem in the country"

"Well you can fuck off then, can't you?"

That's how America solves its problems...

Let, nay, ENCOURAGE the malcontent leave.

Problem solved.

But, that's the problem, the problem hasn't been solved just because the people who know there's a problem have gone.

No problem for the people who remain. Problem was the ones who left.

Well, all I can say is that I wish I saw things as simply as you do. Problem is, things aren't that simple.

When the malcontents are gone, those who remain would see no problem but an opportunity for improvement.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I didn't comment on that. I merely commented on the absurdity, and frankly insult to men and women who are willing to die for us, in comparing Assad and Putin's actions to those our country has taken. Not that we're perfect. But even in WWII we only fire bombed when it was the last resort to destroy military targets. It was never just to kill civilians to kill them. The atom bombs resulted in far fewer Japanese being killed than an invasion would have caused, and more importantly somewhere a million US killed and wounded was avoided.

At this point in Syria, I think the reality will be a partition. Iraq is religiously tied to Assad. the Kurds are not, but there's Turkey. And there are still a few anti Assad sunni who are not ISIS

Your knowledge of history is rather lacking. The plan for Dresdin was to kill the rescue workers. The first raid would be followed by a second raid three hours later just as rescue operations would be in full swing. The raid was delayed until the weather was considered perfect for the firestorm that was envisioned. The Memo to the British airmen who carried out the attack listed impressing upon the Russians the capability of British Airpower as one of the goals.

Was killing rescue workers of military necessity? Explain how impressing the Russians aided in defeating the Nazi's.

As for those who fight and risk death for this nation. You are welcome. I served nine years in the US Army including four years with the 82nd Airborne Division. Speaking as a soldier I can say I was and am willing to risk my life to defend the nation. However there is no strategic value to deposing Assad. Contrary to the fiction there is no such thing as a moderate jihadist.

I don't hate the country. I want it to be better than it is. Before we can improve we have to honestly assess where we are. Building upon a foundation of propaganda does nothing but take us further down a road we have no business being on in the first place.

Oh and the civil war would have had a hard time getting going without the weapons we provided the so called moderate jihadist forces.

CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'

You want to believe we have, and continue to do the right thing. We haven't. We may be less bad but is that what we stand for?

And now on top of all the things, real and imaginary you think the US did, you want us to ignore, essentially endorse Assad's atrocities. If the US is as evil as you claim, how evil does that make you?

Tell me why Syria is so awful we have to act but Nigeria, Somalia, Myanmar, Libya, and dozens of others aren't worthy of our attention?

There is no shortage of suffering. Ethnic cleansing will happen again this year. Women and girls will be raped. Children will be murdered. What makes Syrian children more worthy of our attention than the kids in Libya? Where are the humanitarian bombs for the ethnic minority in Myanmar?

The war in Syria would have ended years ago if we were not supplying the terrorists with weapons and advisors. Or at least would be minor and contained.

Let's be honest for a moment. Assad and the Russians are going to win sooner or later without far more active roles for our military. In other words deploying us troops for combat in Syria. The group we support, the FSA is the smallest of the "Rebel" factions. They have exactly zero chance of winning. If Assad falls, ISIS or Nursa Front, the Al Queda group in Syria will win. That would not be good for the Syrians, the region, or us. Assad is bad, they are worse.

Now, let's pretend we go in with divisions of troops and conquer the country and don't end up in a shooting war with the Russians. I'm not sure how that happens, our plan for that seems to be the idea that the Russians would not dare fight us. Personally, I think they would dare. But let's pretend that the Russians slink home terrified of our troops and we take the country. Then what? The war against ISIS and Nursa Front means the same civilians we are beating our breast about now get bombed by us and written off as collateral damage in our fight.

We won't stay for years or decades which is what would be needed. Like Iraq we will declare victory and leave and the crap would start up again.

Assad is bad. I have never said anything else. There is no great democratic light that hopes to give power to the people. It is just more dictators with dreams of power over the masses. They are all at least as bad as Assad, and again honestly speaking here, much worse.

Your premises are all wrong. The US has played such a minor role in Syria it is bizarre to assert the war would have been over if not for us. Second, Assad and Russia cannot win in the sense of having control of all of Syria. The Russian bombing has saved Assad from losing the war, but he will never control more than about a third of Syria, the Alawite enclave along the coast. If Russia ever stops bombing, the rebels will begin advancing on Damascus again.

There is no reason to talk about US boots on the ground or ISIS taking over. Once Russia abandons Assad, he will fall, and then the US can use the model it is employing in Iraq to take care of ISIS without risking American lives.

ISIS will win in Syria if Russia stops bombing. Who do you think the Rebels are?

View attachment 121539

Remember that Al Nusra is the Al Queda branch in Syria. So if Assad loses, ISIS wins. Why give ISIS their own country?

The premise we should be using is this. First do no harm. Let's say you have a friend with a wicked gash on his head. It is bleeding like hell. You can stop the bleeding by using a tourniquet, and the bleeding will stop. It will also kill him as you strangle your friend.

Getting rid of Assad puts ISIS as the most likely victors, with Al Queda as a strong second favorite. Now tell me how things improve with either of those loonies in charge? FSA is the smallest and weakest group of them all.

We have been supplying ISIS. Their weapons have been bought by us. Now I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment but even I have to admit that providing rocket launchers to Terrorists isn't exactly a good idea.

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA

That story tells of rebel faction fighting each other, and both sides were armed by us. I get that you want to do something. But don't make it worse. If someone had a realistic plan that ended up with something better for Syria I'd be willing to listen, and perhaps even support it. They don't. All they have is this nonsense about having to do something.

My friend is on fire. I have to do something. I grab a shovel and start beating the flames out. Now the fire may be out, and in addition to the burns suffered by my friend he has several broken bones and multiple contusions. It can't really be said that I have helped my friend. I doubt that you would want me to help.

The good guys aren't going to win. So we have to choose the least bad, like in every election. The Libertarian candidate may speak a lot of sense, but he doesn't stand a chance. Realistically you have three options. Assad, ISIS, or Al Queda. Dictator, terrorist, or even worse terrorist. Who do you choose?

Seriously. I want to hear who you choose. The FSA has a reduce with the larger Al Queda force. The FSA is the smallest of the factions. ISIS is funded with stolen oil, and has the best cash flow because of that. So it is more likely they will win if we push Assad out. Is that what you want?

There is no good choice.

Assad and Russia are destroying Syria right now and you argue we should allow them to because you are afraid of what ISIS might do? Here's a comparison of the damage ISIS is doing and the damage Russia and Assad are doing.

Is this what you want?

 

[SavannahMann]

Your knowledge of history is rather lacking. The plan for Dresdin was to kill the rescue workers. The first raid would be followed by a second raid three hours later just as rescue operations would be in full swing. The raid was delayed until the weather was considered perfect for the firestorm that was envisioned. The Memo to the British airmen who carried out the attack listed impressing upon the Russians the capability of British Airpower as one of the goals.

Was killing rescue workers of military necessity? Explain how impressing the Russians aided in defeating the Nazi's.

As for those who fight and risk death for this nation. You are welcome. I served nine years in the US Army including four years with the 82nd Airborne Division. Speaking as a soldier I can say I was and am willing to risk my life to defend the nation. However there is no strategic value to deposing Assad. Contrary to the fiction there is no such thing as a moderate jihadist.

I don't hate the country. I want it to be better than it is. Before we can improve we have to honestly assess where we are. Building upon a foundation of propaganda does nothing but take us further down a road we have no business being on in the first place.

Oh and the civil war would have had a hard time getting going without the weapons we provided the so called moderate jihadist forces.

CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'

You want to believe we have, and continue to do the right thing. We haven't. We may be less bad but is that what we stand for?

And now on top of all the things, real and imaginary you think the US did, you want us to ignore, essentially endorse Assad's atrocities. If the US is as evil as you claim, how evil does that make you?

Tell me why Syria is so awful we have to act but Nigeria, Somalia, Myanmar, Libya, and dozens of others aren't worthy of our attention?

There is no shortage of suffering. Ethnic cleansing will happen again this year. Women and girls will be raped. Children will be murdered. What makes Syrian children more worthy of our attention than the kids in Libya? Where are the humanitarian bombs for the ethnic minority in Myanmar?

The war in Syria would have ended years ago if we were not supplying the terrorists with weapons and advisors. Or at least would be minor and contained.

Let's be honest for a moment. Assad and the Russians are going to win sooner or later without far more active roles for our military. In other words deploying us troops for combat in Syria. The group we support, the FSA is the smallest of the "Rebel" factions. They have exactly zero chance of winning. If Assad falls, ISIS or Nursa Front, the Al Queda group in Syria will win. That would not be good for the Syrians, the region, or us. Assad is bad, they are worse.

Now, let's pretend we go in with divisions of troops and conquer the country and don't end up in a shooting war with the Russians. I'm not sure how that happens, our plan for that seems to be the idea that the Russians would not dare fight us. Personally, I think they would dare. But let's pretend that the Russians slink home terrified of our troops and we take the country. Then what? The war against ISIS and Nursa Front means the same civilians we are beating our breast about now get bombed by us and written off as collateral damage in our fight.

We won't stay for years or decades which is what would be needed. Like Iraq we will declare victory and leave and the crap would start up again.

Assad is bad. I have never said anything else. There is no great democratic light that hopes to give power to the people. It is just more dictators with dreams of power over the masses. They are all at least as bad as Assad, and again honestly speaking here, much worse.

Your premises are all wrong. The US has played such a minor role in Syria it is bizarre to assert the war would have been over if not for us. Second, Assad and Russia cannot win in the sense of having control of all of Syria. The Russian bombing has saved Assad from losing the war, but he will never control more than about a third of Syria, the Alawite enclave along the coast. If Russia ever stops bombing, the rebels will begin advancing on Damascus again.

There is no reason to talk about US boots on the ground or ISIS taking over. Once Russia abandons Assad, he will fall, and then the US can use the model it is employing in Iraq to take care of ISIS without risking American lives.

ISIS will win in Syria if Russia stops bombing. Who do you think the Rebels are?

View attachment 121539

Remember that Al Nusra is the Al Queda branch in Syria. So if Assad loses, ISIS wins. Why give ISIS their own country?

The premise we should be using is this. First do no harm. Let's say you have a friend with a wicked gash on his head. It is bleeding like hell. You can stop the bleeding by using a tourniquet, and the bleeding will stop. It will also kill him as you strangle your friend.

Getting rid of Assad puts ISIS as the most likely victors, with Al Queda as a strong second favorite. Now tell me how things improve with either of those loonies in charge? FSA is the smallest and weakest group of them all.

We have been supplying ISIS. Their weapons have been bought by us. Now I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment but even I have to admit that providing rocket launchers to Terrorists isn't exactly a good idea.

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA

That story tells of rebel faction fighting each other, and both sides were armed by us. I get that you want to do something. But don't make it worse. If someone had a realistic plan that ended up with something better for Syria I'd be willing to listen, and perhaps even support it. They don't. All they have is this nonsense about having to do something.

My friend is on fire. I have to do something. I grab a shovel and start beating the flames out. Now the fire may be out, and in addition to the burns suffered by my friend he has several broken bones and multiple contusions. It can't really be said that I have helped my friend. I doubt that you would want me to help.

The good guys aren't going to win. So we have to choose the least bad, like in every election. The Libertarian candidate may speak a lot of sense, but he doesn't stand a chance. Realistically you have three options. Assad, ISIS, or Al Queda. Dictator, terrorist, or even worse terrorist. Who do you choose?

Seriously. I want to hear who you choose. The FSA has a reduce with the larger Al Queda force. The FSA is the smallest of the factions. ISIS is funded with stolen oil, and has the best cash flow because of that. So it is more likely they will win if we push Assad out. Is that what you want?

There is no good choice.

Assad and Russia are destroying Syria right now and you argue we should allow them to because you are afraid of what ISIS might do? Here's a comparison of the damage ISIS is doing and the damage Russia and Assad are doing.

Is this what you want?

It took a while but we finally got here. You want the terrorists to win.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And now on top of all the things, real and imaginary you think the US did, you want us to ignore, essentially endorse Assad's atrocities. If the US is as evil as you claim, how evil does that make you?

Tell me why Syria is so awful we have to act but Nigeria, Somalia, Myanmar, Libya, and dozens of others aren't worthy of our attention?

There is no shortage of suffering. Ethnic cleansing will happen again this year. Women and girls will be raped. Children will be murdered. What makes Syrian children more worthy of our attention than the kids in Libya? Where are the humanitarian bombs for the ethnic minority in Myanmar?

The war in Syria would have ended years ago if we were not supplying the terrorists with weapons and advisors. Or at least would be minor and contained.

Let's be honest for a moment. Assad and the Russians are going to win sooner or later without far more active roles for our military. In other words deploying us troops for combat in Syria. The group we support, the FSA is the smallest of the "Rebel" factions. They have exactly zero chance of winning. If Assad falls, ISIS or Nursa Front, the Al Queda group in Syria will win. That would not be good for the Syrians, the region, or us. Assad is bad, they are worse.

Now, let's pretend we go in with divisions of troops and conquer the country and don't end up in a shooting war with the Russians. I'm not sure how that happens, our plan for that seems to be the idea that the Russians would not dare fight us. Personally, I think they would dare. But let's pretend that the Russians slink home terrified of our troops and we take the country. Then what? The war against ISIS and Nursa Front means the same civilians we are beating our breast about now get bombed by us and written off as collateral damage in our fight.

We won't stay for years or decades which is what would be needed. Like Iraq we will declare victory and leave and the crap would start up again.

Assad is bad. I have never said anything else. There is no great democratic light that hopes to give power to the people. It is just more dictators with dreams of power over the masses. They are all at least as bad as Assad, and again honestly speaking here, much worse.

Your premises are all wrong. The US has played such a minor role in Syria it is bizarre to assert the war would have been over if not for us. Second, Assad and Russia cannot win in the sense of having control of all of Syria. The Russian bombing has saved Assad from losing the war, but he will never control more than about a third of Syria, the Alawite enclave along the coast. If Russia ever stops bombing, the rebels will begin advancing on Damascus again.

There is no reason to talk about US boots on the ground or ISIS taking over. Once Russia abandons Assad, he will fall, and then the US can use the model it is employing in Iraq to take care of ISIS without risking American lives.

ISIS will win in Syria if Russia stops bombing. Who do you think the Rebels are?

View attachment 121539

Remember that Al Nusra is the Al Queda branch in Syria. So if Assad loses, ISIS wins. Why give ISIS their own country?

The premise we should be using is this. First do no harm. Let's say you have a friend with a wicked gash on his head. It is bleeding like hell. You can stop the bleeding by using a tourniquet, and the bleeding will stop. It will also kill him as you strangle your friend.

Getting rid of Assad puts ISIS as the most likely victors, with Al Queda as a strong second favorite. Now tell me how things improve with either of those loonies in charge? FSA is the smallest and weakest group of them all.

We have been supplying ISIS. Their weapons have been bought by us. Now I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment but even I have to admit that providing rocket launchers to Terrorists isn't exactly a good idea.

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA

That story tells of rebel faction fighting each other, and both sides were armed by us. I get that you want to do something. But don't make it worse. If someone had a realistic plan that ended up with something better for Syria I'd be willing to listen, and perhaps even support it. They don't. All they have is this nonsense about having to do something.

My friend is on fire. I have to do something. I grab a shovel and start beating the flames out. Now the fire may be out, and in addition to the burns suffered by my friend he has several broken bones and multiple contusions. It can't really be said that I have helped my friend. I doubt that you would want me to help.

The good guys aren't going to win. So we have to choose the least bad, like in every election. The Libertarian candidate may speak a lot of sense, but he doesn't stand a chance. Realistically you have three options. Assad, ISIS, or Al Queda. Dictator, terrorist, or even worse terrorist. Who do you choose?

Seriously. I want to hear who you choose. The FSA has a reduce with the larger Al Queda force. The FSA is the smallest of the factions. ISIS is funded with stolen oil, and has the best cash flow because of that. So it is more likely they will win if we push Assad out. Is that what you want?

There is no good choice.

Assad and Russia are destroying Syria right now and you argue we should allow them to because you are afraid of what ISIS might do? Here's a comparison of the damage ISIS is doing and the damage Russia and Assad are doing.

Is this what you want?

It took a while but we finally got here. You want the terrorists to win.

By the numbers, clearly Assad and Russia are the terrorists, so why do you want this slaughter to continue?

 

[SavannahMann]

Tell me why Syria is so awful we have to act but Nigeria, Somalia, Myanmar, Libya, and dozens of others aren't worthy of our attention?

There is no shortage of suffering. Ethnic cleansing will happen again this year. Women and girls will be raped. Children will be murdered. What makes Syrian children more worthy of our attention than the kids in Libya? Where are the humanitarian bombs for the ethnic minority in Myanmar?

The war in Syria would have ended years ago if we were not supplying the terrorists with weapons and advisors. Or at least would be minor and contained.

Let's be honest for a moment. Assad and the Russians are going to win sooner or later without far more active roles for our military. In other words deploying us troops for combat in Syria. The group we support, the FSA is the smallest of the "Rebel" factions. They have exactly zero chance of winning. If Assad falls, ISIS or Nursa Front, the Al Queda group in Syria will win. That would not be good for the Syrians, the region, or us. Assad is bad, they are worse.

Now, let's pretend we go in with divisions of troops and conquer the country and don't end up in a shooting war with the Russians. I'm not sure how that happens, our plan for that seems to be the idea that the Russians would not dare fight us. Personally, I think they would dare. But let's pretend that the Russians slink home terrified of our troops and we take the country. Then what? The war against ISIS and Nursa Front means the same civilians we are beating our breast about now get bombed by us and written off as collateral damage in our fight.

We won't stay for years or decades which is what would be needed. Like Iraq we will declare victory and leave and the crap would start up again.

Assad is bad. I have never said anything else. There is no great democratic light that hopes to give power to the people. It is just more dictators with dreams of power over the masses. They are all at least as bad as Assad, and again honestly speaking here, much worse.

Your premises are all wrong. The US has played such a minor role in Syria it is bizarre to assert the war would have been over if not for us. Second, Assad and Russia cannot win in the sense of having control of all of Syria. The Russian bombing has saved Assad from losing the war, but he will never control more than about a third of Syria, the Alawite enclave along the coast. If Russia ever stops bombing, the rebels will begin advancing on Damascus again.

There is no reason to talk about US boots on the ground or ISIS taking over. Once Russia abandons Assad, he will fall, and then the US can use the model it is employing in Iraq to take care of ISIS without risking American lives.

ISIS will win in Syria if Russia stops bombing. Who do you think the Rebels are?

View attachment 121539

Remember that Al Nusra is the Al Queda branch in Syria. So if Assad loses, ISIS wins. Why give ISIS their own country?

The premise we should be using is this. First do no harm. Let's say you have a friend with a wicked gash on his head. It is bleeding like hell. You can stop the bleeding by using a tourniquet, and the bleeding will stop. It will also kill him as you strangle your friend.

Getting rid of Assad puts ISIS as the most likely victors, with Al Queda as a strong second favorite. Now tell me how things improve with either of those loonies in charge? FSA is the smallest and weakest group of them all.

We have been supplying ISIS. Their weapons have been bought by us. Now I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment but even I have to admit that providing rocket launchers to Terrorists isn't exactly a good idea.

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA

That story tells of rebel faction fighting each other, and both sides were armed by us. I get that you want to do something. But don't make it worse. If someone had a realistic plan that ended up with something better for Syria I'd be willing to listen, and perhaps even support it. They don't. All they have is this nonsense about having to do something.

My friend is on fire. I have to do something. I grab a shovel and start beating the flames out. Now the fire may be out, and in addition to the burns suffered by my friend he has several broken bones and multiple contusions. It can't really be said that I have helped my friend. I doubt that you would want me to help.

The good guys aren't going to win. So we have to choose the least bad, like in every election. The Libertarian candidate may speak a lot of sense, but he doesn't stand a chance. Realistically you have three options. Assad, ISIS, or Al Queda. Dictator, terrorist, or even worse terrorist. Who do you choose?

Seriously. I want to hear who you choose. The FSA has a reduce with the larger Al Queda force. The FSA is the smallest of the factions. ISIS is funded with stolen oil, and has the best cash flow because of that. So it is more likely they will win if we push Assad out. Is that what you want?

There is no good choice.

Assad and Russia are destroying Syria right now and you argue we should allow them to because you are afraid of what ISIS might do? Here's a comparison of the damage ISIS is doing and the damage Russia and Assad are doing.

Is this what you want?

It took a while but we finally got here. You want the terrorists to win.

By the numbers, clearly Assad and Russia are the terrorists, so why do you want this slaughter to continue?

Terrorists have control of other nations. We saw what happened in Afghanistan. We can see what is happening in Somalia and several regions of Pakistan. Absolute lawlessness. We see the ongoing civil war in Libya. As rival factions each loyal to a different sect of religious extremists battle for control.

That is what you want for Syria. That is the future you want. Count me out.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Your premises are all wrong. The US has played such a minor role in Syria it is bizarre to assert the war would have been over if not for us. Second, Assad and Russia cannot win in the sense of having control of all of Syria. The Russian bombing has saved Assad from losing the war, but he will never control more than about a third of Syria, the Alawite enclave along the coast. If Russia ever stops bombing, the rebels will begin advancing on Damascus again.

There is no reason to talk about US boots on the ground or ISIS taking over. Once Russia abandons Assad, he will fall, and then the US can use the model it is employing in Iraq to take care of ISIS without risking American lives.

ISIS will win in Syria if Russia stops bombing. Who do you think the Rebels are?

View attachment 121539

Remember that Al Nusra is the Al Queda branch in Syria. So if Assad loses, ISIS wins. Why give ISIS their own country?

The premise we should be using is this. First do no harm. Let's say you have a friend with a wicked gash on his head. It is bleeding like hell. You can stop the bleeding by using a tourniquet, and the bleeding will stop. It will also kill him as you strangle your friend.

Getting rid of Assad puts ISIS as the most likely victors, with Al Queda as a strong second favorite. Now tell me how things improve with either of those loonies in charge? FSA is the smallest and weakest group of them all.

We have been supplying ISIS. Their weapons have been bought by us. Now I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment but even I have to admit that providing rocket launchers to Terrorists isn't exactly a good idea.

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA

That story tells of rebel faction fighting each other, and both sides were armed by us. I get that you want to do something. But don't make it worse. If someone had a realistic plan that ended up with something better for Syria I'd be willing to listen, and perhaps even support it. They don't. All they have is this nonsense about having to do something.

My friend is on fire. I have to do something. I grab a shovel and start beating the flames out. Now the fire may be out, and in addition to the burns suffered by my friend he has several broken bones and multiple contusions. It can't really be said that I have helped my friend. I doubt that you would want me to help.

The good guys aren't going to win. So we have to choose the least bad, like in every election. The Libertarian candidate may speak a lot of sense, but he doesn't stand a chance. Realistically you have three options. Assad, ISIS, or Al Queda. Dictator, terrorist, or even worse terrorist. Who do you choose?

Seriously. I want to hear who you choose. The FSA has a reduce with the larger Al Queda force. The FSA is the smallest of the factions. ISIS is funded with stolen oil, and has the best cash flow because of that. So it is more likely they will win if we push Assad out. Is that what you want?

There is no good choice.

Assad and Russia are destroying Syria right now and you argue we should allow them to because you are afraid of what ISIS might do? Here's a comparison of the damage ISIS is doing and the damage Russia and Assad are doing.

Is this what you want?

It took a while but we finally got here. You want the terrorists to win.

By the numbers, clearly Assad and Russia are the terrorists, so why do you want this slaughter to continue?

Terrorists have control of other nations. We saw what happened in Afghanistan. We can see what is happening in Somalia and several regions of Pakistan. Absolute lawlessness. We see the ongoing civil war in Libya. As rival factions each loyal to a different sect of religious extremists battle for control.

That is what you want for Syria. That is the future you want. Count me out.

Those are all countries in which the US didn't help, but in Iraq where the US did help, we have Sunni, Kurds and Shia living as peacefully as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Perhaps more peacefully.

Why don't you cut the bullshit and stop pretending you give a shit about what happens to the Syrians? You're not fooling anyone. You are an ideologue who cannot process information that doesn't support what you have decided to believe.

 

[SavannahMann]

ISIS will win in Syria if Russia stops bombing. Who do you think the Rebels are?

View attachment 121539

Remember that Al Nusra is the Al Queda branch in Syria. So if Assad loses, ISIS wins. Why give ISIS their own country?

The premise we should be using is this. First do no harm. Let's say you have a friend with a wicked gash on his head. It is bleeding like hell. You can stop the bleeding by using a tourniquet, and the bleeding will stop. It will also kill him as you strangle your friend.

Getting rid of Assad puts ISIS as the most likely victors, with Al Queda as a strong second favorite. Now tell me how things improve with either of those loonies in charge? FSA is the smallest and weakest group of them all.

We have been supplying ISIS. Their weapons have been bought by us. Now I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment but even I have to admit that providing rocket launchers to Terrorists isn't exactly a good idea.

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA

That story tells of rebel faction fighting each other, and both sides were armed by us. I get that you want to do something. But don't make it worse. If someone had a realistic plan that ended up with something better for Syria I'd be willing to listen, and perhaps even support it. They don't. All they have is this nonsense about having to do something.

My friend is on fire. I have to do something. I grab a shovel and start beating the flames out. Now the fire may be out, and in addition to the burns suffered by my friend he has several broken bones and multiple contusions. It can't really be said that I have helped my friend. I doubt that you would want me to help.

The good guys aren't going to win. So we have to choose the least bad, like in every election. The Libertarian candidate may speak a lot of sense, but he doesn't stand a chance. Realistically you have three options. Assad, ISIS, or Al Queda. Dictator, terrorist, or even worse terrorist. Who do you choose?

Seriously. I want to hear who you choose. The FSA has a reduce with the larger Al Queda force. The FSA is the smallest of the factions. ISIS is funded with stolen oil, and has the best cash flow because of that. So it is more likely they will win if we push Assad out. Is that what you want?

There is no good choice.

Assad and Russia are destroying Syria right now and you argue we should allow them to because you are afraid of what ISIS might do? Here's a comparison of the damage ISIS is doing and the damage Russia and Assad are doing.

Is this what you want?

It took a while but we finally got here. You want the terrorists to win.

By the numbers, clearly Assad and Russia are the terrorists, so why do you want this slaughter to continue?

Terrorists have control of other nations. We saw what happened in Afghanistan. We can see what is happening in Somalia and several regions of Pakistan. Absolute lawlessness. We see the ongoing civil war in Libya. As rival factions each loyal to a different sect of religious extremists battle for control.

That is what you want for Syria. That is the future you want. Count me out.

Those are all countries in which the US didn't help, but in Iraq where the US did help, we have Sunni, Kurds and Shia living as peacefully as the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Perhaps more peacefully.

Why don't you cut the bullshit and stop pretending you give a shit about what happens to the Syrians? You're not fooling anyone. You are an ideologue who cannot process information that doesn't support what you have decided to believe.

Dude. Put the bong down. Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) - Wikipedia

They've been fighting in Mosul for six months straight. http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/486112

What nonsense are you spouting?

Baghdad says US pledges continued support for Iraq's war against ISIS

For three years Iraq has been essentially stalemated against ISIS in Iraq. Where did you get this nonsense about peaceful? Compared to Anbar Province, Detroit is a peaceful place, Chicago is a paradise of neighborly love and respect.

Dude. I don't know what you are taking, but it is nearly too late for rehab.

 

[JBond]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.

Guess Obama shouldn't have lied. Why did he bow to the Russians and allow Syria to retain chemical weapons?

 

[Doc1]

Barry and the democrats raised hell over the Fake News conspiracy Theory that Russia 'hacked the election', demonizing them for doing so - something Barry himself said happens all the time - AFTER Barry had tried to alter 4 nation's governments himself:
- Egypt, an ally: Helped oust Mubarak and replace him with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood
- Libya: Helped Al Qaeda murder and replace Gaddafi
- Israel, an ally: Used tax dollars to try to oust Netanyahu
- Syria: Made it his foreign policy to inject himself into their civil war / government to oust their President

Great thread....America's cup of hypocrisy floweth over.

ALL US presidents are war criminals since pretty much Wilson onwards. EASILY since Roosevelt on. This is not a partisan issue.

It is not an issue at all. It's pure bullshit. You're not a partisan in the sense of being a Democrat or a Republican, you're just anti American.

Anti American GOVERNMENT yes. Plus being an "american" means nothing....ANYONE can be an American. Not everyone can be a White Man or a Southerner.

If they're like you why would we want to be?

 

[busybee01]

And people wonder why so many DESPISE that the world thinks the US government of the past 100 years even comes close to representing THE PEOPLE.