|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jun 26, 2014 19:26:11 GMT -5
You couldn't make it up. Obama is looking for $500m to give to train and equip what he described as "moderate" Syrian opposition forces. These "rebels" are al Qaeda members and al Qaeda supporters! The same people the US is at war with in Afghanistan and Pakistan! And I mean *literally the same people*. These are the militants 10,000 US soldiers have been killed fighting against over the last ten years. Now the US is supporting them because it is determined to oust the democratically-elected President of Syria. As for "training and equipping" a local army - this is precisely what the US did in Iraq, over a ten-year period. And what happened? They took off their uniforms and deserted their posts when they learned that they were about to come under attack from militant Islamists. There were no Islamic terrorists in Iraq until the US orchestrated "regime change". There were no Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan until the US orchestrated regime change. There were no Islamic terrorists in Libya until the US orchestrated regime change. There were no Russian forces in Ukraine until the US orchestrated regime change. And now the US is trying to bring about regime change in Syria - by arming and supporting al Qaeda! Insane. www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28042309
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 26, 2014 19:40:12 GMT -5
That's for damn sure. Either Obama is an idiot or he is determined to destroy the West. I wouldn't describe the president of Syria as "democratically elected", but that is no reason to try to overthrow him. There are lots of tyrants around the world. Are we supposed to overthrow them all? And look what happened in Iraq when we overthrew their tyrant. The ensuing war killed far more people than Saddam ever did. Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jun 26, 2014 20:14:15 GMT -5
Well, whether you like Assad or not, he was re-elected in an open election. Secretary of State Kerry claimed that it couldn't be a fair election with a civil war going on, but - apart from "he would say that, wouldn't he? - I don't really see how that would have any bearing on the result. The US government has a habit of rejecting the validity of elections that produce results it doesn't like. Assad has been the victim of a demonization campaign by the US government. He's portrayed as a tyrant, but actually it is very hard to find evidence to support that claim. Maybe he's a bad guy, and maybe he isn't. At this point I think it's probably impossible to separate the smears from the truth. In any event he has been effective in keeping the Islamist radicals at bay (as were Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghadafi). Getting rid of him will put the country into their hands. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/bashar-al-assad-winds-reelection-in-landslide-victory
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 26, 2014 21:35:20 GMT -5
Unfortunately that's all too true. What was that old saying about "Whom the Gods would destroy, they first drive mad"? The U.S. government is insane. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 3:50:33 GMT -5
In any event he has been effective in keeping the Islamist radicals at bay (as were Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghadafi). And Mubarak. Can't forget Mubarak. (Or doesn't he get to be on your list because he was pro-US?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 3:55:42 GMT -5
Well, whether you like Assad or not, he was re-elected in an open election. Because if the governments of Russia, Venezuela and Cuba say an election was "fair and open", then that absolutely must be the case!
|
|