President Assad gasses and Donald fiddles

[Stoked]

[MENTION=4944]Rubashov[/MENTION] if you don't really care about the oppression of the Kurds in the sense of fighting it because of the stability it brought. Would you be in favor of assisting Assad, working with Russia, and securing Syria for him again?

 

[Stoked]

The terror was established before the US government started its nation-building performance. It is inherent to the very tribal ME societies being artificially lumped together into larger states. Saddam was holding on to power through extreme ethnic and ideological repression. The same thing happening in Syria would have eventually transpired in Iraq.

The US, and other Western states, played a major role in the current debacle in the Middle East. But the situation is far more complex than the supposition that the area was doing great before the US ****ed it up.

I tend to agree. Especially since the M.E. dynamic was already changing due to Afghanistan.

 

[Harambe]

It's the exact same thing.

It's really not.

One is blaming one person, constantly, for everything contrary in their life.
The other is one guy cheerleading a group of people.

 

[Siro]

It's really not.

One is blaming one person, constantly, for everything contrary in their life.
The other is one guy cheerleading a group of people.

He's blaming Trump. Sorry. Donald.

 

[Siro]

I tend to agree. Especially since the M.E. dynamic was already changing due to Afghanistan.

But let's not forget that the US financed and armed the Taliban in order to fight the Soviets.

 

[Stoked]

But let's not forget that the US financed and armed the Taliban in order to fight the Soviets.

You're right America did. But all that only strengthens your argument on the lasting stability of the region/Iraq. An argument I agree with.

 

[♪alt13]

The oil explanation doesn't make sense. How does invading Iraq help energy interests?

Maybe I'm going down the rabbit hole a bit but...

The Saudis sell oil in dollars. Saddam stopped selling oil in dollars. Qadhafi stopped selling in dollars and was pushing for a pan African currency. Interesting

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/id/42308613

 

[Siro]

Maybe I'm going down the rabbit hole a bit but...

The Saudis sell oil in dollars. Saddam stopped selling oil in dollars. Qadhafi stopped selling in dollars and was pushing for a pan African currency. Interesting

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/id/42308613

I can always count on you to hit me with something I haven't heard before. LOL. I'll look into that notion once I get some time.

Meanwhile, have you ever read The Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer? If not, it is an essential read for those interested in understanding more about US foreign policy.

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

 

[Rubashov]

[MENTION=4944]Rubashov[/MENTION] if you don't really care about the oppression of the Kurds in the sense of fighting it because of the stability it brought. Would you be in favor of assisting Assad, working with Russia, and securing Syria for him again?

I don't think the west should have got involved at all, they would have been better off pressuring iran and the Saudis to sort it out themselves.

 

[Rubashov]

That's fine. Disregarding the stuff about international law and its usefulness if it can't be enforced (because using chemical weapons is also a violation of said law), I agree, on moral principle, that the Iraq war was a disaster. That is not because the life of an Australian or an American is more valuable than that of a Kurd, but because one, I reject the legitimacy of state violence as a normal extension of politics, and two, because meddling in the region has helped create the current terrorism crisis, and set the region back considerably. I also find it hard to swallow the argument of "good intentions".

So I don't disagree with the notion that the Iraq war was a mistake. I am simply trying to communicate more information about the situation. The common claims that the war was about stealing oil is generally false (within that framing). The idea that Saddam's Iraq was a stable entity over the long term is also very dubious. If these things are not understood/acknowledged, then no meaningful conversation about the war, or about the US's larger involvement in the Middle East, can be had.

I think you've got it the wrong way round, international relations is the normal extension of state violence. I would like it to be different but I don't think its the case. Next to its security priorities access to cheap energy is the most important priority for a state like the US.

 

[MVP]

I think it is wrong to automatically assume it is Assad who did it unless proven for sure. It may as well be ISIS or rebels supported by USA.

 

[DutchJazzer]

all these people calling for actions will be the first to protest!


are all these people who want trump to do something prepared to do anything up to dropping a NUKE?
if not stfu about going to war

 

[colton]

I'm sorry, but I feel for those who are being slaughtered in Syria. I find it deplorable that after a crime such as this that Donald blames president obama for this. Donald wanted the White House. What are his solutions? Do nothing? That's at least a resolution. However, pointing the finger as a response to these actions accomplishes nothing.

It's deplorable how Donald is directing our foreign policy.

What in your opinion should the U.S. do? What would be the proper response?

I agree that the situation in Syria is horrible and it doesn't yet seem that the Trump administration has a coherent strategy. But I'd really like to know what you think we should do.

But I also agree that Obama is tremendously at fault. Probably more than any other single thing I despise him for what he did (or didn't do) in Syria and Iraq.

 

[Boris]

Maybe I'm going down the rabbit hole a bit but...

The Saudis sell oil in dollars. Saddam stopped selling oil in dollars. Qadhafi stopped selling in dollars and was pushing for a pan African currency. Interesting

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/id/42308613

I can always count on you to hit me with something I haven't heard before. LOL. I'll look into that notion once I get some time.

Meanwhile, have you ever read The Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer? If not, it is an essential read for those interested in understanding more about US foreign policy.

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

[MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] google petrodollar conspiracy. This is not a new idea it is so outdated that's probably why you have not heard of it. We accept this conspiracy created by neo-con founder Henry Kissinger when he forced protection if agreed to "oil only in dollars" on to the world.

Us old farts remember these events that been scrubbed from history by TPTB.

 

[JazzGal]

I don't want to go to war with Russia or really anyone. What I would ideally like to see is military withdrawal from the entire Middle East. We do a terrible job of getting involved in other governments and trying to determine how their countries should run. I hate leaving people in such terrible situations, but we can't fix them all and we tend to make it worse when we get involved.

Instead of increasing military spending, I wish we would spend the money helping people (like the Syrian refugees)instead. Let's not be the aggressors or the world police - let's be the world humanitarians instead.

I live in fantasy land, I know.

 

[JazzGal]

What in your opinion should the U.S. do? What would be the proper response?

I agree that the situation in Syria is horrible and it doesn't yet seem that the Trump administration has a coherent strategy. But I'd really like to know what you think we should do.

But I also agree that Obama is tremendously at fault. Probably more than any other single thing I despise him for what he did (or didn't do) in Syria and Iraq.

Do you also despise George W Bush?

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't want to go to war with Russia or really anyone. What I would ideally like to see is military withdrawal from the entire Middle East. We do a terrible job of getting involved in other governments and trying to determine how their countries should run. I hate leaving people in such terrible situations, but we can't fix them all and we tend to make it worse when we get involved.

Instead of increasing military spending, I wish we would spend the money helping people (like the Syrian refugees)instead. Let's not be the aggressors or the world police - let's be the world humanitarians instead.

I live in fantasy land, I know.

All this

 

[colton]

Do you also despise George W Bush?

No. He was acting on bad intel which got us into the mess to begin with, but based on that intelligence his political and military decisions were sound. Specifically he didn't pull out of Iraq prematurely leaving a gaping void for Isis to fill, and he didn't draw a chemical weapons line and then ignore when Assad crossed it. Obama's horrible political and military decisions by contrary are directly responsible for emboldening ISIS and creating millions of refugees. And it was obvious at the time that those things would happen. But he did them anyway, primarily due to politics. And that's what I despise.

 

[The Thriller]

No. He was acting on bad intel which got us into the mess to begin with, but based on that intelligence his political and military decisions were sound. Specifically he didn't pull out of Iraq prematurely leaving a gaping void for Isis to fill, and he didn't draw a chemical weapons line and then ignore when Assad crossed it. Obama's horrible political and military decisions by contrary are directly responsible for emboldening ISIS and creating millions of refugees. And it was obvious at the time that those things would happen. But he did them anyway, primarily due to politics. And that's what I despise.

Remind me again who signed the Iraqi-US agreement in 2008 to have us out of Iraq by 2011?

Acting on bad intel? Says who? What exactly have you read on this subject? There literally isn't a single historian or scholar who doesn't blame Bush for cherry picking intelligence.

Let's look at the intel, shall we?

Former ambassador Joe Wilson told Bush in Mar 2002 that the yellowcake from Niger was nonsense. Completely fraudulent.

MI6 told Bush that same month that they didn't have any credible intelligence that Iraq had any wmds.

In oct 2002, the state department warned bush that it was "extremely doubtful" that Iraq had wmds.

In November 2002, both France and Germany warn bush that the intelligence claiming that Iraq had wmds wasn't reliable.

Between novermber of 2002 and March 2003 (when the war begins) UN head inspector Hans Blix tells the United States on 3 separate occasions that there is NO evidence that Iraq had wmds.

So I'm curious, what "had intelligence" are you referring to? Especially when you consider that it was common knowledge among his cabinet pre-9/11 that Bush made regime change in Iraq, not terrorism, one of his top international priorities. Bush actually cut funding to anti-terrorism agencies and excluded anti-terrorism expert Richard Clarke from cabinet meetings.

More likely, the president set his agenda. Then pressured the CIA into finding intelligence that supported his agenda. Rather than letting intelligence guide his agenda, he let his agenda guide the intelligence. Those who didn't report intelligence suggesting that Iraq had wmds were rejected (that's what 3 former top CIA officials have reported, including Tenet)

Care to explain all of this Colton? I know this wasn't reported on Fox News, so it might all seem new to ya.

 

[The Thriller]

Do you also despise George W Bush?

Bush is a republican. So we all know the answer to this.