4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Other than in your imagination, who's invading what country?

USA sent a hostile drone into Iranian airspace and Trump supposedly was within 15 minutes of starting a war, after Iran shot it down.

Edited September 8, 20196 yr by dexterm

9 hours ago, MadMuhammad said:

Yep agreed. America should just pull out all their forces across the globe and let the world police itself....

That would do it for me. Knuckleheads, lets try natural selection again for awhile

12 hours ago, MadMuhammad said:

Yep agreed. America should just pull out all their forces across the globe and let the world police itself....

And when it rains rockets with nuclear loads in it.. pity for that nation. ( till of course Your or MY nation is at stake. Then we cry the entire would should come to help us…. like the British and French in 1914-18, again in 1940-45, South Korea 1952-54, South Vietnam ( remind the boat fugitives, who knew maybe 10% would survice the journey out of the Glorius Socialistic state of Vietnam), Kuwait ( 1991), Bosnia and Kosovo in 1993-97, Liberia and Sierra Leone... And now the Kurds again, who does not want to be terminated by Putin and Assad, or be killed by Erdogan ?

And when a government decides to kill a minority because… like the Ukrain farmers in 1930-35 by the Sovjets, or the Nazi's the jews in 1941-45, Zimbabwe the entire opposition of the Ndebele ethnic group, in Cambodia 1/3 of the population, Darfur, south Sudan, than turn a blind eye and a deaf ear… 

Edited September 8, 20196 yr by puipuitom

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

USA sent a hostile drone into Iranian airspace and Trump supposedly was within 15 minutes of starting a war, after Iran shot it down.

Who told that ? Boris the Liar, or his colleague Donald Trump ? 

A lot of noise called high politics but I don't see how its connected to me--US citizen.

It’s just Donald desperately trying to creat an incident to distract everyone 

Surprise, surprise, surprise ( not ).

11 hours ago, dexterm said:

Sanctioning oil imports that may actually help ordinary Syrians, while they simultaneously send arms and personnel to kill and harm Syrian civilians...amazing hypocrisy.

 

Do you have any clear indication that said oil would be used to "help ordinary Syrians" (and mind, Assad's forces kill and killed a lot of them "ordinary Syrians") rather than support Assad's regime and its corrupt ways?

 

With regard to the EU - what arms sales and personnel were sent in with the express intent of killing Syrian civilians?

11 hours ago, dexterm said:

Same as it says about trusting US Administration written assurances. None of this would probably be happening if Trump had not prevented Iran from selling its oil on the free market. Tit for tat. Well done Iran.

 

So, commitments are binding with regard to other countries, but not so much when it comes to Iran?

8 hours ago, puipuitom said:

And when it rains rockets with nuclear loads in it.. pity for that nation. ( till of course Your or MY nation is at stake. Then we cry the entire would should come to help us…. like the British and French in 1914-18, again in 1940-45, South Korea 1952-54, South Vietnam ( remind the boat fugitives, who knew maybe 10% would survice the journey out of the Glorius Socialistic state of Vietnam), Kuwait ( 1991), Bosnia and Kosovo in 1993-97, Liberia and Sierra Leone... And now the Kurds again, who does not want to be terminated by Putin and Assad, or be killed by Erdogan ?

And when a government decides to kill a minority because… like the Ukrain farmers in 1930-35 by the Sovjets, or the Nazi's the jews in 1941-45, Zimbabwe the entire opposition of the Ndebele ethnic group, in Cambodia 1/3 of the population, Darfur, south Sudan, than turn a blind eye and a deaf ear… 

and your point is?

If America didn't keep supporting other nations, perhaps other nations would start supporting themselves. Britain has, IMO, allowed it's military to wither because it thinks the US will rescue them ( again ).

Anyway, who elected the US to be the world's policeman?

11 hours ago, dexterm said:

USA sent a hostile drone into Iranian airspace and Trump supposedly was within 15 minutes of starting a war, after Iran shot it down.

 

The "into Iranian airspace" bit is Iran's version. Accepting it as fact is a choice. Either way, it wouldn't really amount into an invasion. Same goes for Trump's cancelled operation.

6 hours ago, Tug said:

It’s just Donald desperately trying to creat an incident to distract everyone 

 

What incident?

 

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Do you have any clear indication that said oil would be used to "help ordinary Syrians" (and mind, Assad's forces kill and killed a lot of them "ordinary Syrians") rather than support Assad's regime and its corrupt ways?

 

With regard to the EU - what arms sales and personnel were sent in with the express intent of killing Syrian civilians?

Do you have any clear indication that oil wouldn't be used for peaceful purposes... so rather a lame argument.

 

"From early stages of the civil conflict in Syria, major Western countries such as the U.S, France, and the UK provide political, military and logistic support to the opposition as well as rebel groups in Syria that are not designated by them as terrorist."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

No express intent to kill civilians of course...there never is.

 

Western forces conveniently label who they want to kill as terrorists, then when civilians die...what a pity..collateral damage! When you supply arms to a so called friendly faction in a civil war, the weapons have the habit of ending up in anyone's hands. Far more licenced to kill than a barrel of oil.

 

I am no fan of Assad and certainly not ISIS. Of course just a couple of years ago Iranian troops and Hezbollah were fighting alongside US and EU forces to defeat ISIS in Syria, but that was before they were conveniently re-packaged as terrorists.

 

That's the hypocrisy I object to.

Edited September 9, 20196 yr by dexterm

5 hours ago, dexterm said:

Do you have any clear indication that oil wouldn't be used for peaceful purposes... so rather a lame argument.

 

"From early stages of the civil conflict in Syria, major Western countries such as the U.S, France, and the UK provide political, military and logistic support to the opposition as well as rebel groups in Syria that are not designated by them as terrorist."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

No express intent to kill civilians of course...there never is.

 

Western forces conveniently label who they want to kill as terrorists, then when civilians die...what a pity..collateral damage! When you supply arms to a so called friendly faction in a civil war, the weapons have the habit of ending up in anyone's hands. Far more licenced to kill than a barrel of oil.

 

I am no fan of Assad and certainly not ISIS. Of course just a couple of years ago Iranian troops and Hezbollah were fighting alongside US and EU forces to defeat ISIS in Syria, but that was before they were conveniently re-packaged as terrorists.

 

That's the hypocrisy I object to.

 

I wasn't the one making claims about what the oil would be used to - you were. Up to you to support your argument. Following your logic, any sanctions whatsoever ought to be objected to. From posts on other topics, it would seem that you do not have issues with sanctions, so long as they target what you consider to be "right" causes. But by all means, do go on about hypocrisy

 

As for your link - is that all you got? A general reference to the early days of the civil war, and one which clearly implies support was not given indiscriminately. That you choose to use a wide brush and label all those who opposed Assad as this or that is counterfactual. Confusing too - it would seem you're the one who's into labeling people as "terrorists", in this case. Again, hypocritical as can be expected.

 

Neither Iranian troops nor Hezbollah were fighting "alongside" US and EU forces. They might have fought (at times) the same enemy. Not quite the same thing. I'm not aware that Hezbollah's designation was altered in relation to the Syrian civil war, certainly not in the way you imply.

 

It's always amusing to see a poster proclaiming himself as a great "humanist", "atheist" and whatnot cheer-leading violent, dictatorial, corrupt and theocratic regimes and organizations.