Syria

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
(Although it's a bit creepy that there's government supplied footage of cruise missiles launching off one or more of our ships - look close, they framed it so you can see our Flag waving in the wind...wtf)
Do you really expect anything different from this
"regime"?
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
I was being sarcastic. This was Drumpf's reason for not taking out Assad, before he took office. Anyone with half a brain could see Assad's main goal was not ISIS, but keeping his regime intact and in power.
Over my head. Swoosh!
I don't chime in much on Non USA Domestic issues because it doesn't mean much to me unless they attack us on our soil.
I'm more concerned about my household than what others have or do.
 

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
Well, settle down.

This 'regime' is acting, in this fashion, as every single 'regime' before it has acted.

It's in the playbook, and it's just jingoistic dick waving.

Doesn't mean it isn't creepy.
Mission accomplished. "Bring 'em on". Need I say more?
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them.

AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening.

Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated.

AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything?

NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
Glenn Greenwald‏Verified account @ggreenwald 2h2 hours ago



Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Ken Klippenstein

Single most amazing thing about US discourse is how people are continually willing to believe humanitarianism is the goal of new US wars.

Glenn Greenwald added,


Ken KlippensteinVerified account @kenklippenstein
Replying to @kenklippenstein
You know regime change in Syria is rooted in human rights concerns when Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Washington et al. want it.
118 replies 1,360 retweets 1,953 likes
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
Mission accomplished. "Bring 'em on". Need I say more?

It's possible you missed my point.

You call this current administration a 'regime', when, in fact, every last administration qualifies as a 'regime', by your own criteria.

The Obama administration was a 'regime'...I could make that exact case using every argument you have against Trump, just by switching words.

But, don't worry about it - neither you or I have a damn bit of say in it.
 

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
It's possible you missed my point.

You call this current administration a 'regime', when, in fact, every last administration qualifies as a 'regime', by your own criteria.

The Obama administration was a 'regime'...I could make that exact case using every argument you have against Trump, just by switching words.

But, don't worry about it - neither you or I have a damn bit of say in it.
I didn't miss your point. But you may have missed mine. Nothing weird about this regime's use of propaganda. It's what they do.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
madness:

Glenn Greenwald‏Verified account @ggreenwald 6h6 hours ago



Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Eric Geller

This sounds totally safe and not at all likely to risk unintentional escalation with multiple powers, both regional and global:

Glenn Greenwald added,


C8wkJeaXcAA2oKG.jpg
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
I didn't miss your point. But you may have missed mine. Nothing weird about this regime's use of propaganda. It's what they do.

So, you're agreeing with me that every 'regime' uses propaganda?

Obama and Bush and Clinton did the same thing.

Again, it's just dick-waving.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
It's possible you missed my point.

You call this current administration a 'regime', when, in fact, every last administration qualifies as a 'regime', by your own criteria.

The Obama administration was a 'regime'...I could make that exact case using every argument you have against Trump, just by switching words.

But, don't worry about it - neither you or I have a damn bit of say in it.
I understood, therefore my posts.
At least you recognize them as regimes.
The same as all the others before him ... Regimes.
 
Top