Russia On Ground In Syria. Air Power As Well.

Debby said:
Why should they be any different from your administration in that regard :)?
Click to expand...

Regardless of policy outcome tactically and technology wise the US did learn from the Russian experience in Afghanistan with a much lower casualty number. It got to the point without more help from Moscow the Mujahideen basically forced the existing Russian force into submission simply because they weren't a walk over.

Does this look like a Russian military ready for conflict well outside their borders. Putin's ramping up the rhetoric and posturing but is the current Russian military ready. They have their own troubles with Muslims and rebels with in their borders.

http://recyclenation.com/2011/09/cold-war-submarine-recycling-graveyard-russia-kola-peninsula

I'm srue their aircraft and tanks aren't/weren't stored much better.
 
With Russia being aligned to Assad, now having troops on the ground, is it any wonder there is a humanitarian crisis in Libya. Russia (and China) have the gall to vetoe any UN military help but send in their own war weapons.They speak with forked tongues.
 
WhatInThe said:
Regardless of policy outcome tactically and technology wise the US did learn from the Russian experience in Afghanistan with a much lower casualty number. It got to the point without more help from Moscow the Mujahideen basically forced the existing Russian force into submission simply because they weren't a walk over.

Does this look like a Russian military ready for conflict well outside their borders. Putin's ramping up the rhetoric and posturing but is the current Russian military ready. They have their own troubles with Muslims and rebels with in their borders.

http://recyclenation.com/2011/09/cold-war-submarine-recycling-graveyard-russia-kola-peninsula

I'm srue their aircraft and tanks aren't/weren't stored much better.
Click to expand...


My point was more along the lines of America learning from their own conflicts over the past 25 years of which there have been several, all outside your own borders and half way around the world and at least once, based on out and out lies. As for Russia's ramping up and posturing, well perhaps if the US hadn't been involved in Ukraine prior to and during their governmental coup (whatever happened to voting out an unpopular government?), none of this would be going on in the first place. I also think that Russia is doing exactly what the USA or Canada would be doing if we were threatened by some larger outside force seeking to force us to bend to their will and we'd be pretty hot if our own governments in said situation simply 'bent over and waited'.

As for the photos of the rusting subs, well you must remember that when the USSR dissolved, it was on it's knees financially and probably had little idea of recycling or environmentalism. The West, at one time, also had no concept of these things so looking at these old relics of that era and suggesting that they should have done better and making any kind of comparison to our current policies is hardly fair is it? Understanding and knowledge is an evolving thing and each society builds on current knowledge, abilities and wherewithal.
 
Fern, I am having a heck of a time getting any info on what you said about Russia and China 'vetoing UN military help' (to whom) so if you have a link, maybe I could get that from you. I'm very curious about what you've said.


Is anyone else having trouble 'Googling' for information on anything? Everything comes up 'failed to open page' for me.


I also did look at the RT site and one of the articles there addresses the very issue of Russia 'being in Syria' currently. I found it an interesting read and a guy named Richard Spencer of AlternativeRight.com answered a couple questions on his perspective on the story. I have also done a search on CBC, CTV and CNN and was unable to find any mention of the OP story and it should be noted (at least according to Richard Spencer) that the source for that story is a piece in an Israeli newspaper and we all know how they feel about Syria and Iran (who's just come to an agreement with the US) who are allies of Russia.

http://www.rt.com/op-edge/314151-russia-military-media-hysteria/
 
So my access to Google finally got going again (don't know what was going on there!) and you're right Fern, Russia and China did veto a UN proposal to refer 'Syria' to the international criminal court. And after reading a couple of other sites on the issue (well skimmed through them actually) there are so many variables and perspectives on the whole situation, it's easy to see why the civil war there has been going on as long as it has. I even read one that suggested that climate change and the resulting drought that occurred and the resulting crop failures and subsequent migration of farmers and such moving into the cities, etc., for being partly responsible for the unrest that immediately preceded the war.

And then there's also the involvement (albeit at arms length) of other regimes and their intentions, to take into consideration. All about massive exploitation, personal and governmental agendas and once again, it's the civilians who are paying the price. Not fair at all.

As for the allegation of 'Russia being in Syria and bringing weapons' as stated in the originating Israeli news link, well maybe that's a bit of spin to a degree. While Russia has been selling arms to Syria (and that's been widely known) and have been providing repair services in that country, it is also known that the US has been supplying arms to the terrorists that are fighting against the Syrian government. So who's worse? Maybe if Russia and the US had not gotten involved, maybe this conflict would have been settled already and before the thousands dead and millions displaced. And before accusatory fingers are pointed at the Assad government and their atrocities, perhaps we should be considering equally, the violent atrocities that the Saudi's are inflicting on people in their country and on neighbouring Yemen. Why are we angry at one countries subjugation and controls but not the others?

As I've tried to make the point numerous times, governments ALL have their own agenda's and they don't necessarily include the well being of their citizens, but can often be more focussed on supporting those industries that have the money to buy 'accommodation' and that includes my government, the American government and the Russian government and.........Goodness, one of the contentious issues in our current federal election is the immense tax breaks and subsidies that my current government has given to the oil industries here, not to mention the 'adjustments' to our environmental protections that favour those companies. Ask our First Nations people how they feel about either of those 'gifts and favours'.
 
Debby said:
My point was more along the lines of America learning from their own conflicts over the past 25 years of which there have been several, all outside your own borders and half way around the world and at least once, based on out and out lies. As for Russia's ramping up and posturing, well perhaps if the US hadn't been involved in Ukraine prior to and during their governmental coup (whatever happened to voting out an unpopular government?), none of this would be going on in the first place. I also think that Russia is doing exactly what the USA or Canada would be doing if we were threatened by some larger outside force seeking to force us to bend to their will and we'd be pretty hot if our own governments in said situation simply 'bent over and waited'.

As for the photos of the rusting subs, well you must remember that when the USSR dissolved, it was on it's knees financially and probably had little idea of recycling or environmentalism. The West, at one time, also had no concept of these things so looking at these old relics of that era and suggesting that they should have done better and making any kind of comparison to our current policies is hardly fair is it? Understanding and knowledge is an evolving thing and each society builds on current knowledge, abilities and wherewithal.
Click to expand...


After the Vietnam thing I think most of our work in the middle east areas were done with UN requests. I believe that in Yugoslavia problems it was NATO that asked for help. I have no idea about this outright lie mentioned.

We do have two big threats from the Arab states in the US. One is the threats from Iran about getting the US to, whatever their threat might be. Consider their efforts to be mostly terrorist blowing US objects and people up. Also the group that is blowing up everything in the Iraq and Syria areas and ISIS fighters claiming to already have people in the US.
 
The outright lie was Iraq Bob. No WMD and everything that I've read since, says they knew it. And I don't think the 'destabilizing' of the Middle East that General Wesley Clark has reported that was decided on by the Pentagon back in 1991, was something that the UN would have countenanced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5q9PYy1NoA

And if you do happen to watch the video linked, note that one of the countries mentioned as a target was Syria, and then your government started funding and supplying weapons to the terrorists there many of whom were al Qaeda, who'd attacked the US and some of whom have morphed into ISIS. Is that really a sensible thing to do? Arm your enemies? Another country that was bombed by NATO was Libya in 2011 (also mentioned in General Clarks comments) and I can only wonder how much that had to do with Gaddafi's intention to sell his oil for euro's or gold instead of the American dollar.

It should be noted too Bob, that there are many people much smarter than I, who believe that NATO works often at the behest of the American government. http://rense.com/general93/nato.htm I believe Noam Chomsky also believes that NATO is a tool of America.


'In 1999, Nobel laureate Harold Pinter called America's bombing and dismemberment of Yugoslavia "barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe.....'
 
Debby said:
The outright lie was Iraq Bob. No WMD and everything that I've read since, says they knew it. And I don't think the 'destabilizing' of the Middle East that General Wesley Clark has reported that was decided on by the Pentagon back in 1991, was something that the UN would have countenanced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5q9PYy1NoA

And if you do happen to watch the video linked, note that one of the countries mentioned as a target was Syria, and then your government started funding and supplying weapons to the terrorists there many of whom were al Qaeda, who'd attacked the US and some of whom have morphed into ISIS. Is that really a sensible thing to do? Arm your enemies? Another country that was bombed by NATO was Libya in 2011 (also mentioned in General Clarks comments) and I can only wonder how much that had to do with Gaddafi's intention to sell his oil for euro's or gold instead of the American dollar.

It should be noted too Bob, that there are many people much smarter than I, who believe that NATO works often at the behest of the American government. http://rense.com/general93/nato.htm I believe Noam Chomsky also believes that NATO is a tool of America.


'In 1999, Nobel laureate Harold Pinter called America's bombing and dismemberment of Yugoslavia "barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe.....'
Click to expand...


OK, it is pretty obvious that you don't care about facts, you are totally bound up with your own ideas.

Iraq was not a problem and shortly after the ideas of English Gen Sir Mike Jackson who helped organize the Iraq invasion after over 10 years of UN watching Iraq not respond to requests from the UN and other forces hoping to keep him from torturing and killing so many folks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

(Down near the end of the article.)


Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution.
...................

The attack on Iraq was not a US decision as it was put together by several countries, including your British buddies.
 
I do care about facts Bob. Always and in every case which is why I came back to this thread to post that I just found another website that I trust that confirms that Russia is indeed 'in Syria' as stated in the OP. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-05/putin-confirms-scope-russian-military-role-syria The thing I did notice as I was reading through it, was that it does sound like they are doing what America and Canada are basically doing in Ukraine. Providing logistical support and training to the Assad government but with the additional aspect of selling them weapons which I think (not positive) they've been doing for years as they are allies.

I wonder if, in the face of your accusation towards me, if you've listened to the video of General Wesley Clark speaking wherein he makes the statement about America destabilizing the ME? Did you? Or do 'facts' mess up your story?



http://www.wsj.com/articles/bush-th...-destruction-letters-to-the-editor-1423868736 This article in the Washington Post points to the lie of WMD in Iraq and the link you provided even states 'Sir Mike also reveals that he and other senior officers had doubts about the weapons of mass destruction dossier presented by the Blair government in late 2002.'

And from another link: http://www.network54.com/Forum/83655/thread/1188617863/last-1189022437/British+Army+chief+attacks+US+over+Iraq 'Major General Patrick Cordingley, who commanded the Desert Rats during the 1991 Gulf War, said Sir Mike's analysis was "absolutely spot on". ' If you read the following from Wikipedia, you will note that it mentions that the UK and the US relied on a UN Security Council Resolution that was related to the 1991 Gulf War and the ceasefire as well as future inspections of Iraq weapons programs as the legitimizing of the invasion despite the fact that they never did find these so-called WMD.


If you look at the following Wikipedia piece on the 'legality of the Iraq invasion', you will notice that the UN declared it illegal.

The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Courtreported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes[SUP][specify][/SUP] had been committed[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. Many of the political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal[SUP][citation needed][/SUP], while many legal experts[SUP][who?][/SUP] and other international leaders[SUP][who?][/SUP] have argued that it was illegal[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[SUP][3][/SUP] Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]

It goes on to say: 'The commission of inquiry of the government of the Netherlands found that the UN resolution of the 1990s (re: the 1991 Gulf War....) provided no authority for the invasion.[SUP][31]' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal...t_Persian_Gulf_War_and_also_the_2003_Invasion
[/SUP]



 
Debby said:
I do care about facts Bob. Always and in every case which is why I came back to this thread to post that I just found another website that I trust that confirms that Russia is indeed 'in Syria' as stated in the OP. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-05/putin-confirms-scope-russian-military-role-syria The thing I did notice as I was reading through it, was that it does sound like they are doing what America and Canada are basically doing in Ukraine. Providing logistical support and training to the Assad government but with the additional aspect of selling them weapons which I think (not positive) they've been doing for years as they are allies.

I wonder if, in the face of your accusation towards me, if you've listened to the video of General Wesley Clark speaking wherein he makes the statement about America destabilizing the ME? Did you? Or do 'facts' mess up your story?



http://www.wsj.com/articles/bush-th...-destruction-letters-to-the-editor-1423868736 This article in the Washington Post points to the lie of WMD in Iraq and the link you provided even states 'Sir Mike also reveals that he and other senior officers had doubts about the weapons of mass destruction dossier presented by the Blair government in late 2002.'

And from another link: http://www.network54.com/Forum/83655/thread/1188617863/last-1189022437/British+Army+chief+attacks+US+over+Iraq 'Major General Patrick Cordingley, who commanded the Desert Rats during the 1991 Gulf War, said Sir Mike's analysis was "absolutely spot on". '


If you look at the following Wikipedia piece on the 'legality of the Iraq invasion', you will notice that the UN declared it illegal
The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Courtreported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes[SUP][specify][/SUP] had been committed[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. Many of the political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal[SUP][citation needed][/SUP], while many legal experts[SUP][who?][/SUP] and other international leaders[SUP][who?][/SUP] have argued that it was illegal[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[SUP][3][/SUP] Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]
Click to expand...

The point of my post against your post was and still, even with this condemning post of yours is this. I was attempting to turn your condemnation of the US for the incorrect attack of Iraq to the fact that it was a joint resolution of several countries. They did what the UN group was not about to do for the Iraq people or the world. For many years now we have had Russia and China not willing to agree to many things the US, GB, FR have wanted to do. So the idea produce by Gen Sir Mike Jackson was adopted and the Iraq war was restarted. The article you post does nothing about proving the restart is illegal. It just expands the correctness to further and further years and still no joint agreement on anything.

Big problem was after the Iraq government was created and the foreign military just left. We should have done as was done after the WWII ended and left both military and government agencies in charge as we watch the new governments developed and proved their worth. We, the US are still in many countries now and now with permission. One country I remember asked the US to leave, and we did. Philippines wanted to be alone, they are now.
 
One thing I will give you is that while there were mustard and nerve gas stockpiles in Iraq (no nukes that I can find out about so far), the following from the NY Times needs to be appreciated as well.


'The weapons were not part of massive, active stockpiles that the United States set out to destroy by waging a war that would last eight years, take thousands of lives and leave Iraq in chaos. They were “remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West,” Mr. Chivers writes............ “The discovery of old, degraded chemical munitions in Iraq is not news. The Bush administration went to war expecting to find older weapons, along with a thriving new chemical weapons program (that didn’t exist),” says Simon Maloy at Salon.' http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/who-was-right-about-w-m-d-s-in-iraq/?_r=0

I also believe that the attack on Iraq was brought about more by Saddam Hussein also beginning to talk about selling his oil in exchange for something (euro's) other than the American dollar. The more countries that decide to conduct business without having to make use of the American dollar, the more the American world position and ability to run up trillions of dollars in debt is threatened. He had to go and the 'wmd's' provided a justification not to mention the 1991 decision by the Pentagon concerning the ME.

As I've demonstrated periodically here Bob, I am not one to consider my own government superior to all others. That's not at all what I've ever said. I am completely open to admitting my own governments failings as well as to congratulate your government when I think it is on the right track.

Also regarding 'my buddies, the British', can I remind you that Canada was not involved in the invasion of Iraq. Our then PM Jean Chretien chose not to participate to the joy of the majority of Canadians.
 
BobF said:
The point of my post against your post was and still, even with this condemning post of yours is this. I was attempting to turn your condemnation of the US for the incorrect attack of Iraq to the fact that it was a joint resolution of several countries. They did what the UN group was not about to do for the Iraq people or the world. For many years now we have had Russia and China not willing to agree to many things the US, GB, FR have wanted to do. So the idea produce by Gen Sir Mike Jackson was adopted and the Iraq war was restarted. The article you post does nothing about proving the restart is illegal. It just expands the correctness to further and further years and still no joint agreement on anything.

Big problem was after the Iraq government was created and the foreign military just left. We should have done as was done after the WWII ended and left both military and government agencies in charge as we watch the new governments developed and proved their worth. We, the US are still in many countries now and now with permission. One country I remember asked the US to leave, and we did. Philippines wanted to be alone, they are now.
Click to expand...


And equally, your government and mine voted against a resolution that would BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS as well as voting against the Un resolution to combat the 'glorification of Nazi-ism' so both our countries have done their share of voting against good things too!

The US invasion of Iraq was considered an illegal war. Period. And your government was perfectly happy to go against international law and commence a war against Iraq with a coalition of supporting countries. This was not a continuation of the Gulf War which was all about sending Hussein home after he invaded Kuwait, it was a new one. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/26/canada-united-nations-nazism-resolution_n_6228152.html It seems to me too, that the suggestion that the Iraq invasion was a 'continuation' or a 'restart' is kind of stretching it because the Gulf War was in 1990 while the Iraq invasion was 2003. Thirteen years apart???? Really?

As for leaving the Phillipines when you were asked to, well good for America. It was the right thing to do. But this morning I was watching the following video and Mr. Noam Chomsky brought up the issue of Cuba and the invasion of that country by the US 100 years ago and when Cuba finally gained it's independence, it demanded the return of Eastern Cuba (Guantanamo) and the US refused. So sometimes a country makes good and just decisions and sometimes it doesn't. In case you're interested in that video, here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5IlDB-Ago and at 48 seconds is where the example begins. I've always wondered how America got hold of Guantanamo by the way, and now I know.
 
Debby said:
And equally, your government and mine voted against a resolution that would BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS as well as voting against the Un resolution to combat the 'glorification of Nazi-ism' so both our countries have done their share of voting against good things too!

The US invasion of Iraq was considered an illegal war. Period. And your government was perfectly happy to go against international law and commence a war against Iraq with a coalition of supporting countries. This was not a continuation of the Gulf War which was all about sending Hussein home after he invaded Kuwait, it was a new one. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/26/canada-united-nations-nazism-resolution_n_6228152.html It seems to me too, that the suggestion that the Iraq invasion was a 'continuation' or a 'restart' is kind of stretching it because the Gulf War was in 1990 while the Iraq invasion was 2003. Thirteen years apart???? Really?

As for leaving the Phillipines when you were asked to, well good for America. It was the right thing to do. But this morning I was watching the following video and Mr. Noam Chomsky brought up the issue of Cuba and the invasion of that country by the US 100 years ago and when Cuba finally gained it's independence, it demanded the return of Eastern Cuba (Guantanamo) and the US refused. So sometimes a country makes good and just decisions and sometimes it doesn't. In case you're interested in that video, here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5IlDB-Ago and at 48 seconds is where the example begins. I've always wondered how America got hold of Guantanamo by the way, and now I know.
Click to expand...

It was not an illegal war but in some minds, not all agree on that conclusion at all.

Sure glad you are happy with your conclusions. For me, I disagree with your conclusions and join the thousands or millions of others that don't agree with you either. How you intend to change the history and facts about Iraq is yours to do. Did you know that they US did find other military weapons in the sands of Iraq?
are you upset that the US was determined to end Saddam's cruel ways of treating his people??

From the past writings:

Bush did not lie about the WMD threat from Iraq. The entire UN Security Council was convinced about the Iraq threat to the world. A number of votes were taken over approximately 10 years for Iraq to open up it's country for total inspections and they refused. In fact, in 1998 they pushed the inspectors out of Iraq. This was much bigger than Bush. The following are reports that a large stockpile of Sarin loaded projectiles had been found and how some folks felt about it.


Some folks felt they were too old to be worried about. Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that Iraq had WMD weapons.



It is time to find another excuse for hating Bush and the US.
.......................................................


CNS publication of June 21, 2006


(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) announced Wednesday the discovery of more than 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically "sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles," in Iraq.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html
........................................................


United States Department of Defense


WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.


"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html
...................................................


NPR


Iraq
Expert: Iraq WMD Find Did Not Point to Ongoing Program





Talk of the Nation, June 22, 2006 · Two Republican lawmakers say a declassified report points to hundreds of weapons of mass destruction that were found in Iraq. Peter Hoekstra, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on Wednesday released a declassified summary of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center. A former weapons inspector says most of the degraded weapons are 20 years old and did not point to an ongoing chemical weapons program.


Guest:


Charles Deulfer, Former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq; former deputy chairman of the United Nations Weapons Inspection Team in Iraq


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298 [
.................................................


Tammy Bruce comments on the WMD


The Official MSM Panty Twist Over Iraq WMD


After the Santorum/Hoekstra announcement that we have found over 500 chemical weapons munitions in Iraq, the MSM has been beside itself. It has twisted its collective panties into the biggest wedgie on Earth trying to explain how Sarin and Mustard Gas from before a certain date isn't really bad, and not even really a WMD at all.


http://tammybruce.com/2006/06/the_official_msm.php
.............................................
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you will accept some UN statements but not others Bob. The UN called it an illegal war while coalition 'experts' said it wasn't.

If you google the phrase: should we have left Saddam Hussein in power, you will find many who say yes, bad as he was, he at least provided stability in that region. No stability now, thank you coalition. How many Iraqi civilians were killed by 'the coalition'? 500,000 and yes, you're right, the guy was a monster, but is the situation better now or has the violence spread with ISIS in Iraq and Syria?

Weapons found? http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/who-was-right-about-w-m-d-s-in-iraq/?_r=0 “The weapons were not part of massive, active stockpiles that the United States set out to destroy by waging a war that would last eight years, take thousands of lives and leave Iraq in chaos. They were “remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West,”



Anyway, I said to my husband just this morning, that it has gotten so that you 'have to have a program to keep track of the players' these days (isn't there a saying to that effect?)

You have America funding and training terrorists including al Qaeda, who are fighting Assad in Syria, bombing ISIS (I've read recently that it's somewhat ineffective but civilians will probably be dying in those bombing runs),

Turkey is bombing the ISIS and the Kurdish fighters who've been apparently pretty effective at fighting ISIS on the ground while 'the coalition' says nothing to Turkey about that,

American allies (Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) were or maybe still are apparently helping to fund ISIS with America saying little about that,

and suggestions that Israel (who are the 'pet project' of America and have never been attacked by ISIS even though they share a border and isn't that strange?) had supported Hamas in the early days in order to divide Palestinians so that they could more effectively abuse and steal from that people. (I thought all 'Arabs' hate the Jews and would see them wiped off the map?)

And after meddling in the governmental issues in Ukraine (in order to affect Russia and move NATO to it's borders), America is now in a tizzy because Russia (is in Syria) to help a decades long ally, which although perhaps the time frame is different, America and Canada are doing in Ukraine (ie. providing training and logistical support and some would say, including some fighting support, albeit without official soldiers).

And the civilians, once again and as always, are the ones who are dying. 1991 saw the Pentagon make a decision to destabilize the ME (while the military industrial complex gets sickenly richer and richer). At what point do even the war mongers begin to wake up to the fact that humanity is a failed species unless we learn to get along, sometimes mind our own business, and end the 'agenda's' and imperialism?

You're right, you have your opinion, I have mine and we can each support those opinions with links to info. I would say that I generally try to source information from 'unbiased' groups or at least that have less bias, than say the US Dept of Defense for example. When I was researching on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as I was making up my mind on that I didn't look at any Palestinian sites but preferred western and Israeli human rights groups, Israeli newspapers, western intellectuals, ex-IDF statements, the UN, etc.

I did try to look at the links you've provided but none of them worked.

But as I was saying Bob, you and I have different perspectives and I suspect, 'never the twain shall meet' so my suggestion is that we call it a day on this topic. It's been interesting though and I appreciate the conversation. Have a good day.

 
I only read the top part of your over long post. Lots of conjecture, little else.

Why we left after the war was a big mistake. We should have stayed and helped Iraq to resist the intrusion of Iran into the Iraq efforts to grow their brand new government they developed. As soon as the allies left the one sided ideas from Iran were allowed to destroy the open government the Iraq people had put together. We, the allies of the original war of a few days, should have stayed on as they did in Europe and Japan after WWII.

Those same groups that kept fighting over the years we were there are now the same two groups that are destroying the governments that had been there then. Not only destroying the governments but destroying the many hundreds of years of history, religion, artworks, structures. That entire area is now operating essentially on its own. We should never have left when we did. It was wrong and that is about all that can be said. It was wrong to leave when we did.
 
We all have the right to disagree with certain American foreign policies. To do so in no way illustrates a hatred of Americans. Canadians often disagree with our own government's policies, foreign and domestic, yet remain fiercely patriotic. It is true patriotism to wish to change things for the better, either at home or abroad.
 
That's right Shalimar. Freedom of speech for all, a hallmark of democracy right! And I make a point of backing up my opinions with links and facts because frankly, if you want to discuss whether a picture is pretty, THAT is subjective and opinion is acceptable. But if you're talking issues and actual events, than facts MUST back up opinion. So I provide links as a rule. On the other hand when I suspect the links aren't looked at or listened to, what purpose would there be in going to the trouble of going into my extensive 'bookmarks' list to find the support. At least the links that I'm providing are working and are not totally biased (like the Department of Defense telling the world that they are completely justified in bombing the crap out of.....).

Anyway, hope you're having a great day Shalimar. I'm going to get back to (sound of bells tolling gloomily:() my paperwork but maybe I'll check back later.
 
Debby said:
That's right Shalimar. Freedom of speech for all, a hallmark of democracy right! And I make a point of backing up my opinions with links and facts because frankly, if you want to discuss whether a picture is pretty, THAT is subjective and opinion is acceptable. But if you're talking issues and actual events, than facts MUST back up opinion. So I provide links as a rule. On the other hand when I suspect the links aren't looked at or listened to, what purpose would there be in going to the trouble of going into my extensive 'bookmarks' list to find the support. At least the links that I'm providing are working and are not totally biased (like the Department of Defense telling the world that they are completely justified in bombing the crap out of.....).

Anyway, hope you're having a great day Shalimar. I'm going to get back to (sound of bells tolling gloomily:() my paperwork but maybe I'll check back later.
Click to expand...


Those quotes I posted are now 9 years old. I have no control over the places they get put into. Some I have found but these so far I have not. That does not end the facts they spoke of at the time. For us to not have stayed in the middle east with military strength is the big problem. We should not have tried to clean out Iraq as we did, but since we did we should have stayed on to make sure Iraq remained as they said they would while the UN forces were remaining. Yes, by the time we left the UN had woken up and arrived to help things out. But without the military from several countries the UN is voiceless and has no control. So you see what we have. What the nations did in Europe and Japan is what we should have done in the middle east too. Some of our best data is held by our government and not by some not so sure of them groups. Personal preferences you know. Most of these peace only groups I see are just not the kind of folks I will trust at all. If you like them they become your leaders or masters what ever. I prefer our well known government agencies and popular news agencies to bring us real and honest statements. Far too many of the anti war dreamers are way out of order and make no sense at all. My feeling for sure.
 
Unfortunately Syria is now the world's problem with the massive refugee out flow. But one must wonder beside recent combat why are they not fighting to stay. Maybe they wanted out all along. Why did they want out. Many say Assad's regime has killed more or committed more crimes than terrorist which hard to believe but it does put civilians in the middle.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2015/...illers-are-more-prolific-than-islamic-states/

One must question why Russia is backing this individual. Russia or any outside influence could do some good and Russia will do what they want. That does not mean the rest of world shouldn't question or accept it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top