RugbyRebels

If the Trumpet can locate Syria on a map without help, I'll give him a chocolate fish.

rowan wrote: working with Russia against ISIS is the only chance for peace in Syria

The only chance for peace would be getting an acceptable government in place and a populace ready to support it without resorting to violence. Allowing a murdering despot to remain is no model for peace, but we don't appear to have the power to do better.

rowan wrote:We'll have to wait & see if Trump follows through with this, of course, but working with Russia against ISIS is the only chance for peace in Syria and saving it from becoming the next arena for eternal war (if not WWIII), following on from Afghanistan (15 years & counting), Iraq (13 years & counting) & Libya (5 years & counting).

The war in Syria was instigated entirely by the US and its allies - notably the UK, France, Turkey, Saudi and Israel - who trained and funded rebels to destabilize the country. These were mostly a combination of Sunni Muslims disenfranchised by the Iraq War and Saudi-backed Jihadists from around the region. Not surprisingly they soon turned to acts of terrorism. But the Russians stepped in to help the government of the country, & now the rebels/terrorists are holed up like cowards in residential areas using civilians for cover.

The only comparison between this and the situation in Yemen is in fact that of the US-backed Saudi army and the rebels/terrorists NATO, Saudi and Israel have been backing in Syria, because the Saudis, too, are armed by the Americans, British and French.

Unlike Clinton, who had pledged to pursue the same warmonger policies as Obomber and attempt to overthrow yet another regime and destroy yet another nation not currently under US control, Trump actually looks like he wants the carnage to end and give peace a chance to break out. This has undoubtedly upset Wall Street, the military industrial complex and the corporate media, who profit so handsomely from eternal war and the ongoing massacres of children, women and men in their multitudes, but for anybody with even a modicum of humanity this will be embraced as positive news.

The only chance to save the Assad regime and guarantee another violent uprising in about 10 years time

Just like the heroic West saved Afghanistan from the Taliban, Iraq from Saddam, & Libya from Gaddafi - even though it took the deaths of eight million civilians, the destruction of three entire nations, the creation of countless terrorists and a refugee tidal wave toward Europe in order to achieve it. I'm sure the shellshocked and traumatized survivors feel indebted to the noble and virtuous West

Interestingly, Saddam and Gaddafi were once allies of the West's, as was Assad, but for some bizarre reason they all woke up one day and decided to start exterminating their own population, forcing the heroic West to intervene. Nothing to do with oil or pipeline proects, nothing to do with the arms trade and industrial military complex.

& let's forget that there are other dictatorships and monocracies in the region which are even more barbaric and oppressive than any of the above-mentioned. But we don't bomb them. We arm them so they can fund terrorism and bomb their impoverished neighbours. Ditto the Apartheid state of Israel as it colonizes Palestine and exterminates the native population.

But, in reality, the United States is a rampaging imperial monster which has destroyed much of the Middle East during the past couple of decades, just as it destroyed much of Central America before that, and South East Asia before that. & saving the world from Moscow has always been its smoke-screen, so Westerners were brainwashed to hate a people who have done them no harm at all; and never actually intended to.

Trump has seen through all this, and intends to apply the brakes to the rampaging imperial machine, while actually befriending Russia - much to the outrage and horror of those who would've been quite content to see things continue as they are (but only on their TV screens, naturally)

It's a fair point some of those now in conflict with some of the west were once on much friendlier terms, and it's a fair point that oil motivates much of the thinking (of all parties). That doesn't mean the despots typically discussed aren't murdering scum. One could perhaps also cite that in Libya and Iraq that a lid was kept on the fundamentalist religious groups, but at some point those powder kegs were going to go up, and there isn't an obvious solution when you've got groups wanting sole application of some very (different) doctrinal regimes and then others wanting a secular approach, allied to their various certainty that all most convert to their view.

The only seeming solution would be to level the place, and that's not actually a solution, that's madness on a scale even Stalin and Hitler never got near too.

It's no accident that American wars don't end. The countries they are invading on whatever pretext are effectively being colonized. The big winnners are the arms dealers and military industrial complex. That is there and plain to see. American president after president has continued this, regardless of campaign pledges, because foreign policy is being dictated by Wall Street. Clinton, in fact, didn't even deny her intentions to continue it and her plans for Syria were both arrogant and dangerous. It was always going to require a radical outsider to come along and buck the trend. & this is the reason I prefer Trump over Clinton. I don't care what he does to America. They deserve whatever they get. But I do care about what America does to the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall downgraded to fence

rowan wrote: But I do care about what America does to the Middle East.

Which is fair, that you then ignore what Russia and the Middle East do to the Middle East remains odd.

WaspInWales wrote:Impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall downgraded to fence

Don't they already have one? And wasn't it a massive clusterfuck for the local residents?

It's very odd that you have that perception of Russia, Digby. They would be way, way behind not only America, but also Israel, the UK, France & Saudi in this regard, and in Syria they are at least on the side of the elected government, and against the rebels/terrorists. Oh, collateral damage, I hear you cry. & I suppose you think there hasn't been any in Iraq over the last week or two, just because the mainstream media is refusing to report most of it. & if civilian casualties in the fight against terrorism were the yardstick, Israel would have to be the most evil of them all (by its own version of events, because the reality is even worse). Yet Obomber just rewarded them with an unprecedented 38 billion dollar 'aid' package. So we really are looking at the extreme hypocrisy when it comes to demonizing Russia. & the mainstream media gets away with that because generations of Westerners have been conditioned for it by a lifetime of brainwashing.

It's not an elected government in Syria, no more than Saddam was truly elected in Iraq. And the Russians are there for the oil the same as the US.

The Syrian government was indeed elected, however farcical the election may have been. We had a farcical election here. Nobody's pushing for regime change. There are US-puppets running Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, as well as the Ukraine. There's a dictator in Egypt and an Apartheid regime in Israel - both of which receive billions in 'aid' from America - and a monocracy in Saudi, which sponsors both ISIS and the Clinton Foundation.

& if Russia was in Syria for the oil, how is it they are fighting with the government, not to depose it? Why weren't they there before NATO et al sent the rebels and terrorists in? The relationship between Damascus and Moscow was in fact initiated by the former after an ultimately unsuccessful coup orchestrated by the same crowd of CIA agents who succeeded in overthrowing Iran's first democratic leader a few years later and returning the brutal Shah.

So, aside from coming to the aid of its long-time ally Syria in the fight against rebels and terrorists, where else has Russia been involved in the Middle East lately? Are you going to hark back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Did you know that in the 1970s Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government with full rights for women, but Washington brought in the Mujahideen to destabilize it and bring about regime change. That's when Moscow got involved. & 4 decades and multiple wars and regime changes later you still haven't figured out how all this works . . .

The pudding's in the proof.

rowan wrote:It's no accident that American wars don't end. The countries they are invading on whatever pretext are effectively being colonized. The big winnners are the arms dealers and military industrial complex. That is there and plain to see. American president after president has continued this, regardless of campaign pledges, because foreign policy is being dictated by Wall Street. Clinton, in fact, didn't even deny her intentions to continue it and her plans for Syria were both arrogant and dangerous. It was always going to require a radical outsider to come along and buck the trend. & this is the reason I prefer Trump over Clinton. I don't care what he does to America. They deserve whatever they get. But I do care about what America does to the Middle East and the rest of the world.

I care you thundercunt.

Luckily I've seen Rambo 3 and thus know all about Soviet involvement in Afghanistan

rowan wrote:It's no accident that American wars don't end. The countries they are invading on whatever pretext are effectively being colonized. The big winnners are the arms dealers and military industrial complex. That is there and plain to see. American president after president has continued this, regardless of campaign pledges, because foreign policy is being dictated by Wall Street. Clinton, in fact, didn't even deny her intentions to continue it and her plans for Syria were both arrogant and dangerous. It was always going to require a radical outsider to come along and buck the trend. & this is the reason I prefer Trump over Clinton. I don't care what he does to America. They deserve whatever they get. But I do care about what America does to the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Amirican revoloutinary war ended in 1783, American Civil War ended 1865, Sanish American war ended 1898, War of 1812
ended 1814, Viietnam War 1975, Korean War 1953 (technically a ceasefire not a complete end to hostilities), WWI ended 1918
WWII ended 1945

Epic

cashead wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall downgraded to fence

Don't they already have one? And wasn't it a massive clusterfuck for the local residents?

No, most of the border is completely unfenced. In fact, in many parts it is just k-rail.

Coco wrote:

cashead wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall downgraded to fence

Don't they already have one? And wasn't it a massive clusterfuck for the local residents?

No, most of the border is completely unfenced. In fact, in many parts it is just k-rail.

Noted that you didn't deny the current fence was a massive clusterfuck for the local residents.

Coco wrote:

zer0 wrote:An interesting perspective on how Trump won.

Interesting

Indeed.

I wonder how many septics voted for Trump because they're fed up with celebs and media luvvies telling them who to vote for. Seems like it's a big FU to them too.

I see Trumpo has appointed Steve Bannon as his chief strategist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... and-why-i/

Meanwhile, the teenage esque hysteria continues unabated. Over here the mainstream media are collectively rending their vestments and rubbing ashes in their faces. Major panic over Corporation Tax rates too. All that sweet seppo green that has funded Oirish wastrels may be diverted back to Sam's place.

The sound of liberal tears plopping into skinny lattes is sweet music to my ears.

cashead wrote:

Coco wrote:

cashead wrote: Don't they already have one? And wasn't it a massive clusterfuck for the local residents?

No, most of the border is completely unfenced. In fact, in many parts it is just k-rail.

Noted that you didn't deny the current fence was a massive clusterfuck for the local residents.

Not to mention wildlife. Such things are not entirely clear from 30 floors on the upper west side.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Oh yes, the US is apparently going to help a brutal minority government commit war crimes against its own people.

It might still be the best plan absent of a viable alternative. It's sure as hell not good news though

And in a nutshell you have the discussions that occur at US policy meetings.

cashead wrote:

Coco wrote:

cashead wrote: Don't they already have one? And wasn't it a massive clusterfuck for the local residents?

No, most of the border is completely unfenced. In fact, in many parts it is just k-rail.

Noted that you didn't deny the current fence was a massive clusterfuck for the local residents.

Depends on where you live. Do you know where I live in relation to the southern border btw?