Why Syria?

It's like dealing with a bunch of high school kids around here sometimes.

When are you going to start thinking and arguing for yourselves?

Or are you just going to spend you lives trading other people's opinions as your own thoughts?
Yeah, who needs links? You can just use your own brain and make up facts to believe.
 
Obama says civil war in Syria ‘haunts me constantly’

President Barack Obama has admitted his inability to end Syria’s brutal civil war still haunts him, but insisted his refusal to put his hand on the scales was the right choice.

In an interview with celebrated presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, published Wednesday, Obama cited Syria when asked about difficult choices during his eight years in office.

“There are always things that I think I wish I could have done better,” Obama said as he prepares to leave the White House this January.

“But there aren’t a lot of situations where I look back and I say, the decision I actually made or the course we actually pursued was the wrong course.”

A “good example of that is the situation in Syria, which haunts me constantly,” he added.

Maybe if he hadn't armed all those crazy bastards, things might be better? Pouring gasoline on a fire is not fire prevention.
 
Your NATO Allies at work!

Syrian Army Discovers Turkish Manual Instructing Terrorists in Use of Nukes



In the course of a recent operation to liberate a terrorist-held enclave in northern Latakia, Syrian Army troops discovered a 'manual for terrorists'. Printed in Turkey, the book teaches jihadis "the proper conduct of war on foreign soil," up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.

The manual, printed in Arabic and called 'Zad al-Mujahed' (roughly, 'Fruits for the work of God's Warriors') was published in Istanbul, with its publishers making no attempt to even try to hide the book's origins. It features the logo of the Istanbul-based Guraba publishing company, contact information, and even an ISBN, inside its front cover.
 
1, Her support for Cheney's "Operation Iraqi Liberation," later called 'Iraqi Freedom'.

2. Her support for the French and Italian's conquest of Libya.

3. Her support for the arming the Syrian mobs.

4. Her general statements about Regime Change and;

5. Her general bellicose nature evidenced by her past history of the last ~15 years.

Sources would still be nice.
 
Sources would still be nice.

I don't think there is any reason to say she would not be included in the 'Hawk" category. Doesn't make you a warmonger though. Certainly a controversial opinion but IMO many female politicians may side with 'hawks' to not seem so soft and feminine. Though the most dangerous creatures on the planet are typically females in defence of their young. But having to deal with such a male top heavy role as being a leading politician may require compromising certain principles. Or she could just be a 'hawk' because she has every right to be as any man. Obama is certainly a 'dove', IMO. I doubt he has engaged in any warlike activities with any sort of satisfaction. But such things are part of the job title with being POTUS. And US Sec. of State. Sometimes the role defines you not the other way around.
 
I don't think there is any reason to say she would not be included in the 'Hawk" category. Doesn't make you a warmonger though. Certainly a controversial opinion but IMO many female politicians may side with 'hawks' to not seem so soft and feminine. Though the most dangerous creatures on the planet are typically females in defence of their young. But having to deal with such a male top heavy role as being a leading politician may require compromising certain principles. Or she could just be a 'hawk' because she has every right to be as any man. Obama is certainly a 'dove', IMO. I doubt he has engaged in any warlike activities with any sort of satisfaction. But such things are part of the job title with being POTUS. And US Sec. of State. Sometimes the role defines you not the other way around.

I don't see Hillary as a warmonger or a hawk, because that implies the person is chomping at the bit to enter war, without using diplomacy or other actions, like sanctions, beforehand. And let's not forget how we got into Iraq and why, as if a war in Afghanistan wasn't enough for those bastards.
 
I don't see Hillary as a warmonger or a hawk, because that implies the person is chomping at the bit to enter war, without using diplomacy or other actions, like sanctions, beforehand. And let's not forget how we got into Iraq and why, as if a war in Afghanistan wasn't enough for those bastards.

I don't believe Hillary is a psycho-war Monger. I believe she will use the military to achieve her ends. And she will relish the POWER, Muhahah!.

I don't believer her ambitions are to just play Domestic, no she will want to play on the Big Stage. She will depend upon her Congressional Caucus to lead the Domestic policy, as long as they don't raise taxes on the Establishment. Bill will watch out for the connected class, and liaise with the Corporations.
 
I don't see Hillary as a warmonger or a hawk, because that implies the person is chomping at the bit to enter war, without using diplomacy or other actions, like sanctions, beforehand. And let's not forget how we got into Iraq and why, as if a war in Afghanistan wasn't enough for those bastards.

Laughable. She's never seen a war or a weapons system she didn't like. Her husband killed more than a million Iraqis too.
 
Laughable. She's never seen a war or a weapons system she didn't like. Her husband killed more than a million Iraqis too.

True.

I sometimes wonder whether it would be better if Trump gets elected.
He definitely comes across as a racist but one hopes that it's more of an election strategy, like in one of his reality shows.

At least for the rest of the world, he can't possibly be worse than the Clintons, can he? Or maybe he'll just end up doing what his predecessors did.
 
In saying that:
I remember a former political poster saying that in fact american presidents don't really have that much power, as the public wrongly assumes. That the Congress does.

And a poster recently said this : "Presidents often start wars to circumvent Congress so they can act via executive order."

How much truth is it to that?
 
I don't think he could be worse than Clinton. She is pure naked ambitious evil.
 
The War Against the Assad Regime Is Not a ‘Pipeline War’
by Gareth Porter



The massive, direct and immediate power interests of the US war state – not the determination to ensure that a pipeline would carry Qatar’s natural gas to Europe – drove the US policy of participation in the war against the Syrian regime. Only if activists focus on that reality will they be able to unite effectively to oppose not only the Syrian adventure but the war system itself.
 
Why ARE the Russians there? for what long term purpose?
 
Why ARE the Russians there? for what long term purpose?

Russia needs a Mediterranean port base to allow then to operate their Navy and to have a friendly air base to project power in the Med. And it pisses off the Americans.:)
 
Russia needs a Mediterranean port base to allow then to operate their Navy and to have a friendly air base to project power in the Med. And it pisses off the Americans.:)

I think we should just GTFO, let it go.

They don't want us, EU hates us, we're all just dumb ass rednecks who know nothing and are the worst thing to ever happen to mankind. The most racist, sexist and oppressive shit hole on the planet as far as most of the world is concerned.

We need to leave Europe with it's dick hanging in the wind....let them fuck for it.

If it were up to me I'd call Putin in the middle of the night and tell him Europe is his.
 
Syria - The U.S. Propaganda Shams Now Openly Fail

The Obama administration, and especially the CIA and the State Department, seem to be in trouble. They shout everything they can against Russia and allege that the cleansing of east-Aleppo of al-Qaeda terrorist is genocidal. Meanwhile no mention is ever made of the famine of the Houthis in Yemen which the U.S. and Saudi bombing and their blockade directly causes.

But more and more major news accounts support the Russian allegation that the "moderate rebels" the U.S. is coddling in Syria are actually in cahoots with al-Qaeda if not al-Qaeda itself.
 
Did I Say That? State Department Official Admits Ties to Terrorist Groups

The record shows that the CIA’s relationship to these shadowy groups goes back more than 30 years to Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan where the Mujahideen were used to rout the Russians in Washington’s stealth war against the Soviet Union. Elements of the Mujahideen evolved into al Qaida which launched the attacks on 9-11. One might think that a catastrophic event like the downing on the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan, would prompt a thorough review of the policy (of supporting Islamic extremists), but that hasn’t been the case at all. The CIA continues to back all manner of dodgy groups (Death squads in Nicaragua and Iraq, neo-Nazis in Ukraine, jihadists in numerous locations) provided they help to advance the imperial agenda. National security and the safety of the American people simply never factor into elite decisionmaking. What drives the policy is oil, power, money and Israel. Nothing else matters.

Last week, the spokesman for the US State Department, John Kirby, delivered a uncharacteristically threatening message to Moscow which suggested that the US maintains connections with terrorist organizations. Here’s what he said:

“Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft.” Kirby added that if the war in Syria continues “more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft will be shot down.”

"Truth, Justice and the American Way" :eek:
 
The Hillary Clinton Presidency has Already Begun as Lame Ducks Promote Her War

Last August 8, on that serious think tank the Charlie Rose show, former acting CIA director Michael Morell said that U.S. policy in Syria should be to make Iran and Russia “pay a price”. Russians and Iranians should be killed “covertly, so you don’t tell the world about it”, he said. Morell proposed that U.S. forces begin bombing Syrian government installations, in order to “scare Assad”. Probably angling for a good job next year, he is on record supporting Hillary Clinton as a “highly qualified commander in chief” and a “strong proponent of a more aggressive approach” in Syria.

Act I – An Act of War

Then, on Saturday, September 17, the U.S. Air Force did exactly what that CIA insider had called for. In sustained air strikes, four U.S. jets bombed a key Syrian Army position that had been defending the town of Deir ez-Zor from ISIS/Daech fighters. More than sixty Syrian soldiers were killed and over a hundred wounded. Daech forces immediately took advantage of the strikes to overrun the government position. In effect, the U.S. Air Force acted as air cover for the Islamic fanatics U.S. to advance against the legitimate army of Syria.

This was not only a violation of the cease-fire painstakingly worked out by Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. It was an open military aggression by the United States on the territory of a sovereign state.
 
Laughable. She's never seen a war or a weapons system she didn't like. Her husband killed more than a million Iraqis too.
Mike Pence thinks Hillary would weaken the military and our standing in the world.

Who could be right, you or him?
 
Back
Top