Not particularly, we have plenty of dictator apologists floating about to fill in the diversity gaps.
Are Russia preparing for WW3?
- Thread starter MoBeats
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Not particularly, we have plenty of dictator apologists floating about to fill in the diversity gaps.
You said "According to Google, Aleppo had a population of 2.3m.'"
The area besieged by the Syrian Army has close to 250,000 civilians in it. Are you suggesting that Russian bombing killed 2 million civilians in Aleppo?
You think I'm a dictator apologist?
Cmon, you can debate better than that.
Nope, I didn't mean to suggest that.
Ok cool, mistook it then.
IWhat do you mean please? That's a pretty strong statement to make?
Not sure what this means ? I missed the Apple Event.
Typo. But I see you got jokes. Sorry for asking.
Whilst i agree with you about previous western interventions this one i feel is a lot different and one where there should have been intervention, Assad was on the verge of being toppled just a bit more support was required, then of course the Iranians and Russians ramped up their support which leaves us where we are now. Even if Assad wins the next few battles he will never win in the long run and will never rule in peace again, he's killed far too many for that to happen now, another rebellion is just around the corner, so i do not see the end game or benefit in propping him up.
RE foreign fighters, there are an estimated 27k foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, the majority of this number are ISIS fighters, who don't actually fight the regime, this number alone is not enough to fight the Regime, Iran and Russia, there is, contrary to the Regime propaganda genuine resistance from Syrian people who do not have appalling ideologies so they should get our help.
You may well be right re: the untenable nature of Assad's regime but I'm less clear about the nature or make up of the rebel forces and their ideologies and I'm just as unclear as to what fills the vacuum once/if he's deposed. Certainly the UN video posted above in this thread suggests a murkier set of motives for all parties, including the US backed rebellion.
I need to research this to continue discussing the matter as I can only present conjecture currently.
By government, you mean the unelected family dynasty of the Assads, who have maintained their power through brutality, mass oppression and torture. In other words, one dictatorial 'strongman' has invited another dictatorial 'strongman' to come help him maintain his dictatorship.
Some countries do not work under a democratic system. Depose the current, then feck off and leave it to rot, it's what's happened everywhere else. And the whole world is worse off for it.
Piss off out of there and leave them alone.
You've described pretty much every middle eastern regime. Sovereignty still needs to be respected, otherwise diplomacy becomes an fad, especially when the alternative seems to be supporting a rag tag bunch of Islamist factions with terrifying ambitions.
Also, it's ludicrous to call Russian involvement an 'invasion', when the only invading done in the region has been from the US.
I agree with you that simply removing dictators and then disappearing to leave a vacuum behind is a bad idea and a recipe for chaos and further bloodshed. But that's not the only alternative.
Any operation to remove a dictator by force - especially in a country that has no prior experience of freedom and democracy - needs to consist of a plan that is 10% about the military operation and 90% about what happens afterwards: the law and order, the gradual instillation of civilian rule, the integration of former foes (including those in the military you've just defeated) etc etc etc. And that means 90% of the plan's allocation of material and financial resources also.
Obviously this is not now possible in Syria, given Russia's involvement and their hostility to most things concerning freedom and democracy.
I understand what you're saying, but truth is that when these guys are deposed the country is always, left to rot. Not one time has it helped or done any good. The taliban are back in charge of Afghanistan for example, that one was supposed to have gone better than most.
They're all based on lies anyway, the government and media spin lies to justify it, but it's all about the control of resources.
They're all based on lies anyway, the government and media spin lies to justify it, but it's all about the control of resources.
I haven't called the Russian involvement an invasion. And I don't agree that the US is especially supporting Islamists - most of their support in this area goes to the Kurds and to the more secular Arabs. But the whole thing now is a bloody mess.
What would make the most sense is to focus on defeating the so-called Islamic State, since they are the greater evil. This is what the US most wants, but the Russians are more interested in propping up Assad and so securing their own military and political power in Syria. Likewise the Turks are more interested in attacking the Kurds and - despite being ostensibly a member of NATO - cosying up to the Russians under the guidance of their own increasingly authoritarian political leader.
I don't see what can be done to stop the slaughter in Aleppo and elsewhere. The main way of reducing it would be for the US to instigate a no-fly zone over the city, but that risks WWIII if the Russians defy it and get their aircraft shot down ... so it's too risky. What I would do, if I was the US President, is come out more clearly in support of the Kurds and to say to hell with what Turkey's increasingly Islamist leaders might say or do. Because the Kurds at least are not Islamists, are an effective fighting force, and might be able to eventually re-create their own country - Kurdistan - out of this mess.
I'm not as cynical as you. I don't think it all about resources. I think there is also genuine concern for freedom, human dignity and the alleviation of suffering.
It's also not correct to say that the "taliban are back in charge of Afghanistan". They remain a significant force and threat and control some areas, but that's it. And the people of Afghanistan are still much better off than they were under Taliban rule.
Is it not the case that at least a proportion of the rebel forces are ISIS or at least ideological aligned to ISIS?
Yes, if by 'rebel' you means those attacking Assad's forces. But there is also fighting between ISIS and some of the less-Islamist, less extremist, rebel groups. It's all a mess, in which many groups are fighting many other groups.
Well, quite. I'm just not sure that what the US wants most is the defeat of ISIS hence my query. But it certainly is a bloody mess.
I can see you're as misled by the mainstream media as some of the others, not your fault but just means you're unable to see anything else.
Read behind the bullshit spin and you'll see another line. It's quite clear that some of these bombs that have "missed" their targets, have helped the rebel groups no end.
Also, bare in mind these are state of the art weaponry we're talking about here, millions of dollars or pounds worth. You have like really well trained guys in a room flying drones painting targets with pinpoint accuracy, asking a commander or whatever for permission to fire. It's not something that just misses.
We've done all this before anyway, read through the thread and come up with something new.
Read behind the bullshit spin and you'll see another line. It's quite clear that some of these bombs that have "missed" their targets, have helped the rebel groups no end.
Also, bare in mind these are state of the art weaponry we're talking about here, millions of dollars or pounds worth. You have like really well trained guys in a room flying drones painting targets with pinpoint accuracy, asking a commander or whatever for permission to fire. It's not something that just misses.
We've done all this before anyway, read through the thread and come up with something new.
Let's start with the Genocide twins Assad and Putin - and go from there. Once they face trial and punishment we can consider expanding it to other dictators.
Why start there? Why would you not start with invasive forces? And back date it?
Well since this is the Syria thread.....let's see if our resident anti Democracy, moral outrage feigning, dictator apologists are willing to offer up one of their own before we apply the principle more broadly.
Yep start with Bush and Blair.
Funny how the US electorate are flirting with the possibility of voting in a racist, divisive potential warmonger like Trump, and then use words like democracy. Couldn't make it up!
I'd actually argue that Clinton was the warmonger of the two of them. I worry for the future with her in charge. The "I'll teach them a lesson" rhetoric is only going to end one way.
Trump, the racist buffoon that he is wants to ban muslims, Hilary doesn't like them even that much, she wants to bomb them out of their homes.
Uncertain times ahead.
Ok, I don't even know who you're talking about now but tag them so they see it and come on into the discussion.
They will arrive in due course with arguments of hypocrisy and why carpet bombing civilians is ok in this case.
And, just a thought here, Bernie gets cheated out of running for president, you have to choice between Clinton and Trump. You call this democracy?
And, just a thought here, Bernie gets cheated out of running for president, you have to choice between Clinton and Trump. You call this democracy?
Yes, as in you can vote for who you want as President. Do they offer this on your island ?
Actually no. We have this fecked up thing where you vote for someone for your area, then they all sit in a parliament type building and decide between them who gets to be the top dog, the public have no say apart from putting in one of about 50. It's shite. I voted this year for the first time properly, my guy got in and I thought my vote had made a difference, but then this absolute weapon got voted in to be our president, I suppose you'd call it, and I now realise it's same as everywhere else. A load of bollocks to make me feel like I've had a part of it.
Still laughing you think you've had a choice though
Actually no. We have this fecked up thing where you vote for someone for your area, then they all sit in a parliament type building and decide between them who gets to be the top dog, the public have no say apart from putting in one of about 50. It's shite. I voted this year for the first time properly, my guy got in and I thought my vote had made a difference, but then this absolute weapon got voted in to be our president, I suppose you'd call it, and I now realise it's same as everywhere else. A load of bollocks to make me feel like I've had a part of it.
Still laughing you think you've had a choice though
I definitely have a choice. The rules pretty clear for all participants before they choose to run for President.
This is definitely a conversation for another thread but in short, I believe the only choice you've had was between Hilary and Bernie. Look at all the republican candidates, not two brain cells between them. No way was Hilary ever going to lose against one of them. She may as well be up against this chair I'm sat on.
So your choice is between a corporate slag who has clearly been funnelled to the top of the pile and a chair.
Cool opinion bro!
Well technically not a democracy, but there are free elections and anyone who meets the legal qualifications can run. Being able to vote for the candidates of your choice does not of course guarantee that good candidates will seek office.
I'm a conspiracy nut, ignore me.
Just startled by the condescending pretentious 'they're all stupid' type comments!I'm a conspiracy nut, ignore me.