48 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Oh, please! Nobody, not even a you, provides sources for every statement in every posting. I give sources when I feel they are necessary or helpful or subsequently if asked. Otherwise we'd all be here round the clock.

 

"Statements of US intent", even for the most fastidious of nit pickers, strikes me as a fair description of the foreign policy recommendations produced by the PNAC think tank. 

 

I will do my level best in future not to make denials about comments which are themselves so broad as to make denial irrelevant. In fact, it will be quite a relief not to do so.

 

As you probably have already deduced, I am sworn to secrecy about the precise nature of my relationship with the boys and girls at Langley.

 

And those lame jokes? Blame them on my wooden leg.

 

Boom! Boom!

 

 

 

The usual hyperbole. Nothing said about sourcing "every statement". If a strong, controversial claim is made, though - I don't think it unreasonable to know if it's based on something other than a poster's belief.

 

No interest in what strikes you as a fair description. PNAC being a "statement of US intent" is a false claim. That you label facts not corresponding to your narrative as "nitpicking" is hardly compelling.

 

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

And then there's a reality TV personality, with WWE record to boot, playing the character of POTUS...

Actually, Donald Trump is in fact president. In case you haven't heard, there was an election in 2016. The lesser candidate (and  that's saying quite a lot) lost. I wonder if she still views Bashar al Assad as a "reformer".

22 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

<snip> I wonder if she still views Bashar al Assad as a "reformer".

More nonsense from the alternative facts clique

 

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/23/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-hillary-clinton-called-syrias-bas/

 

Edited April 15, 20188 yr by simple1

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The usual hyperbole. Nothing said about sourcing "every statement". If a strong, controversial claim is made, though - I don't think it unreasonable to know if it's based on something other than a poster's belief.

 

No interest in what strikes you as a fair description. PNAC being a "statement of US intent" is a false claim. That you label facts not corresponding to your narrative as "nitpicking" is hardly compelling.

 

Spot the difference 1

 

You said:  If a strong, controversial claim is made . . . I don't think it unreasonable to know if it's based on something other than a poster's belief".

 

I said: "I give sources when I feel they are necessary or helpful or subsequently if asked".

 

Spot the difference 2

 

 I said PNAC was a statement of US  intent.

 

Wikipedia says: "PNAC's first public act was to release a Statement of Principles on June 3, 1997 . . . which said the nation faced a challenge to 'shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests.' In order to achieve this goal, the statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of political and economic freedom abroad." 

 

If that isn't a statement of intent, then what would you call it?

 

 

Edited April 15, 20188 yr by Krataiboy

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/syria-action-background

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/airstrikes-show-we-stand-up-for-principle-and-civilised-values-article-by-boris-johnson

41 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Spot the difference 1

 

You said:  If a strong, controversial claim is made . . . I don't think it unreasonable to know if it's based on something other than a poster's belief".

 

I said: "I give sources when I feel they are necessary or helpful or subsequently if asked".

 

Spot the difference 2

 

 I said PNAC was a statement of US  intent.

 

Wikipedia says: "PNAC's first public act was to release a Statement of Principles on June 3, 1997 . . . which said the nation faced a challenge to 'shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests.' In order to achieve this goal, the statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of political and economic freedom abroad." 

 

If that isn't a statement of intent, then what would you call it?

 

 

 

Considering all them statements you make regarding US agenda, actions covert and overt, no - a whole lot of what you claim is not sourced. You may feel that these are not needed, but that does not compel others to accept your point of view.

 

PNAC was a think-tank, not a US government agency, so saying "statement of US  intent" is all very well - but it's still not quite what you advertise. There are differing views as to the level of influence its publications and recommendations exerted over US administrations. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Grouse said:

Nope, stable equilibrium is what's required. I don't see the Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Saudis, Israelis and Syrians inviting each other for tea do you? No, but we can enable strategic balance where no country in the area has hegemony. USA has Saudi and Israel covered. Russia has Syria. What about the Kurds? They COULD be a great counter balance! Where are our leading diplomats?

Giving the Kurds a homeland would mean Turkey,Iraq and Syria would have to give up some territory, that would be Palestine on steroids. 

2 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

Actually, Donald Trump is in fact president. In case you haven't heard, there was an election in 2016. The lesser candidate (and  that's saying quite a lot) lost. I wonder if she still views Bashar al Assad as a "reformer".

If he is president why doesn't he act like one?

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Considering all them statements you make regarding US agenda, actions covert and overt, no - a whole lot of what you claim is not sourced. You may feel that these are not needed, but that does not compel others to accept your point of view.

I'm not compelling anyone to do anything. You are just wandering aimlessly around the mulberry bush.

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

PNAC was a think-tank, not a US government agency, so saying "statement of US  intent" is all very well - but it's still not quite what you advertise. There are differing views as to the level of influence its publications and recommendations exerted over US administrations. 

 

 

I mentioned in an earlier posting that PNAC was a think tank, so there's another nit you needn't keep picking. Your postings are getting increasingly desperate and irrelevant.

14 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

I'm not compelling anyone to do anything. You are just wandering aimlessly around the mulberry bush.

I mentioned in an earlier posting that PNAC was a think tank, so there's another nit you needn't keep picking. Your postings are getting increasingly desperate and irrelevant.

 

Yes, my point was that your arguments aren't compelling. Thanks.

 

You accept  the PNAC was a think tank, and yet you treat its products like accepted policy ("statement of US  intent").

 

You can deflect all day, if you like. Still won't make your comments any more to the point or even correct.

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

Assad is as evil as the Islamists with his torture and killing and long before the commencement of the 2011 Civil War. 

 

You may like to revise your recent history of Syria. Assad facilitated the insertion of Islamist terrorists into Iraq during the US occupation. It was Assad who triggered the Civil War with his extremely violent suppression of the Syrian Arab Spring, including torture of juveniles, his release from his prisons of Islamists to create mayhem in an attempt to gain sympathy for his activities and so on. Not forgetting the massive corruption of his sect's 12% minority dictatorship. 

 

Yes, US made mistakes in deciding which factions to support in the first years on the war. However, overwhelming Assad is the decision maker & owner of the horror show that is Syria. As a small example look up his militia, Shabiha, whom he has taken zero action to hold accountable for their War Crimes. 

Nobody in their right mind would pretend Assad is an angel. He is a ruthless autocrat, as were the those other recent "victims" of US-inspired regime change, Saddam Hussein and Muhamar Ghaddafi.

 

They also, however, had in common the incidental virtue of being able to contain the volatile forces within their own fractured nations - until somebody thousands of miles away decided it would be otherwise..

 

Surely you are not going to argue that even without US intervention  we would be entering the eighth year of a seemingly insoluble  Syrian conflict - now with the added risk of confrontation between the two nuclear neo-colonial superpowers busy eyeballing each other across the rubble and broken bodies?

 

I appreciate your references to relevant material which reveals more of the true nature of the Assad regime and helps set current events in a broader historical context.  

Edited April 15, 20188 yr by Krataiboy

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, my point was that your arguments aren't compelling. Thanks.

 

You accept  the PNAC was a think tank, and yet you treat its products like accepted policy ("statement of US  intent").

 

You can deflect all day, if you like. Still won't make your comments any more to the point or even correct.

I give up. Does your missus EVER get the last word?