Nobel Peace Prize winner allows troops to behead children

Page 3 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

15 Sep 2017, 8:42 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Syria has been saved.


Has nothing to do with a "change" in American foriegn policy. How are your buddies in HAMAS going?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Sep 2017, 10:02 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I already said, Assad is a dilettante, but a homicidal one just the same. I can't believe the rest of the world would regret his removal.


The US did do similar alliances with Chile's Augusto Pinochet and other south American dictators like Juan Peron and Alfredo Stroessner purely because they were anti-communist. Back in the day Soviet Russia and Red China were the ISIS of their time. These dictators used the opportunity of these temporary alliances with the US to murder many hundreds of thousands of (often poor) civilians using right wing death squads with implicit approval (and sometimes military support of the US) under the guise of labelling opposition as communists.

There is (therefore) a historic precendent


Not my country's finest moments.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

16 Sep 2017, 12:45 am

So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Sep 2017, 1:01 am

cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

16 Sep 2017, 1:35 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


What about the early 1980s when the Ayatollah was declaring death to America and funding terrorism?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Sep 2017, 2:13 am

cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


What about the early 1980s when the Ayatollah was declaring death to America and funding terrorism?


Yes, that was the time Reagan was playing off Iraq and Iran.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

16 Sep 2017, 2:38 am

Iran almost looks like the good guys now, ironic



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Sep 2017, 2:44 am

cyberdad wrote:
Iran almost looks like the good guys now, ironic


Needless to say, we're not talking about one dimensional cartoon characters, but real countries and flesh and blood human beings. Nobody is entirely good or bad, but are a combination of both, depending on degrees.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

16 Sep 2017, 11:41 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
For one, America has no right to do either. Secondly, you support far worse than him and thirdly you don't do it because you want people to be free.


No, those things you rattled off are policies of the United States government, not me. As a matter of fact, I do personally want people to be free.
As for removing Assad - no one seems to have had a problem when the US and it's allies had removed homicidal maniacs like Hitler and Mussolini. As I already said, Assad is a dilettante, but a homicidal one just the same. I can't believe the rest of the world would regret his removal.


Bombing them doesn't free them. All the people the US have attacked since 2001 are a million times worse off, and the US don't do it to free people, you really need to understand that, because it's like talking to a brick wall.
Again, the US didn't enter the war to remove fascism. Their first acts were to support Nazis in North Africa and work against the Nazi resistance in Italy. How did 'freeing' Japan go? The US are worse than all their enemies.
Read what I already wrote, the US supports far worse and is far worse with its foreign policy. The were supporting Al Qaeda against Assad.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

16 Sep 2017, 11:44 am

cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I already said, Assad is a dilettante, but a homicidal one just the same. I can't believe the rest of the world would regret his removal.


The US did do similar alliances with Chile's Augusto Pinochet and other south American dictators like Juan Peron and Alfredo Stroessner purely because they were anti-communist. Back in the day Soviet Russia and Red China were the ISIS of their time. These dictators used the opportunity of these temporary alliances with the US to murder many hundreds of thousands of (often poor) civilians using right wing death squads with implicit approval (and sometimes military support of the US) under the guise of labelling opposition as communists.

There is (therefore) a historic precendent


Communism is just the pretext used. Was Saddam anti Communist? They do it because these proxy leaders destroy their own people and help US corporations.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

16 Sep 2017, 11:46 am

cyberdad wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Syria has been saved.


Has nothing to do with a "change" in American foriegn policy. How are your buddies in HAMAS going?


Has a lot to do with it, you just wouldn't admit to being wrong. Under Trump, the US stopped funding the organ eating rebels, then bang, Assad wins. How's your buddies in Israel, with their racial colonies in illegally occupied territories? Israel helped Hamas form by trying to destroy the PLO in the 80's.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

16 Sep 2017, 11:48 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


That's disgusting. It was war industry profits.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Sep 2017, 1:46 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


That's disgusting. It was war industry profits.


I never, ever, said that was the right thing to do morally. And while it did doubtlessly help the arms industry, the main point was to keep two aggressive powers at each others throats instead of attacking anyone else.
As for your previous post: what source do you have for America supporting the Nazis in North Africa, and for opposing Anti-Nazi resistance in Italy? America's first act upon shedding neutrality and entering the war had been to declare war on Japan.
Yes, Japan is better off today than it had been when they had been part of the Axis powers.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

19 Sep 2017, 1:16 pm

Propaganda Due, or P2, was in the news connected with Banco Ambrosiano and the Vatican. They and other groups were US-supported fascists left to resist socialist movements in Europe. Plenty of people in the US government supported fascist ideology, as long as it favored capitalism and US corporations.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

21 Sep 2017, 5:09 pm

Trueno wrote:
Funny how people change once they get their arse on the seat of power. Been going on ever since arses were invented, though.


Not really, blatant hypocracy and backsliding are constants of the human condition.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

15 Oct 2017, 7:22 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


That's disgusting. It was war industry profits.


I never, ever, said that was the right thing to do morally. And while it did doubtlessly help the arms industry, the main point was to keep two aggressive powers at each others throats instead of attacking anyone else.
As for your previous post: what source do you have for America supporting the Nazis in North Africa, and for opposing Anti-Nazi resistance in Italy? America's first act upon shedding neutrality and entering the war had been to declare war on Japan.
Yes, Japan is better off today than it had been when they had been part of the Axis powers.


Do you have Spotify?

How do you know that? Nuking 2 cities was the worst crime in history.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"