realweirdo wrote: » The war on terror is a a complex one which demands a complex debate...it can't be settled by the usual 'America bad, everyone else good' arguments that go on around here. If I thought anyone was interested in that complex debate I'd gladly take part. The main point of the debate is that the Taliban and AQ are against democracy and most forms of human rights for individuals. Yes there is collatoral damage confronting them, but allowing them spread their poisonous philosophy is just not an option. I think even you would agree with that. America joined WW2 at the end of '41. Roosevelt was probably keen to join earlier but there was a very vocal anti-interventionist lobby in the states who prevented him acting. The vocal ant-interventionists have their descendents today who say things like "we shouldn't get involved, there's nothing in it for us, not our problem and so on." America did confront Russia as much as possible. Cuban missible crisis an example, but yes much of it was proxy conflicts to try to prevent the spread of communism, something clearly you think would have been ok. You also think that Russia is a knight in shining armour in the world. I would love to see you condemnn Russia and before it the USSRs appalling human rights record...they ruled half of Europe with local dictators. The Japanese Empire was a genocidal state, just ask the Chinese. No-one cares if they were about to run out of oil or not. The best thing that ever happened was that Empire was consigned to the dust bin of history. This thread has got boring with the usual monotonous anti american foreign policy types on it. They never say anything new.
clairefontaine wrote: » He's supporting the rebels in Syria. CIA just sent them more weapons. There is no talk or strategy of stabilising Syria, though this whole thing stinks of regime change. And who do you think will replace Assad if his regime is ousted? They know by now you can't just replace what's their with western post reformation ideas about democracy. They know it doesn't work. So to me it still looks like he supports the Muslim brotherhood defacto.
Mr.Micro wrote: » Yes indeed. Getting Assad out and replacing him with some other group, that might prove to be not right, or acceptable either. Violent change does not always yield democracy, or a government that will fit all needs, alas.
bumper234 wrote: » Before you condemn people for being antiAmerican maybe you should read back the last few pages and read your posts. You are pro American to the point of insanity. I have never claimed to be anti American no more than i have claimed to be pro Putin pro Russian Pro Assad pr Taliban or pro Muslim brotherhood so please stop accusing anyone who disagrees with your pro American USA#1 rhetoric of being anti American or Anti democracy. What i am is anti death of innocent men women and children. Yes Assad or the rebels set off chemical weapons and i would have no problem with seeing the person responsible for this in front of a firing squad. But the answer to bombings is not MORE bombings.
clairefontaine wrote: » And because we know this, makes me suspect this venture has nothing to do with supporting democracy.
realweirdo wrote: » What is the answer? Prayer? Fasting? More UN diplomacy? Give us a really seriously credibile alternative. You are just repeating the same naive nonsense over and over about how Assad would change if people asked him nicely, how he would have handed over his chemical weapons if only people would have asked him nicely. So far I am hearing waffle. The Americans haven't used bombs..yet..they said they wouldn't use them unless Assad refused to hand over his CW.
clairefontaine wrote: » There is no answer. It's a civil war, like the US' civil war, no intervention would have helped. It just had to happen.
realweirdo wrote: » But do you condemn the involvement of non syrians such as Hezbollah and Iranians on Assads side and Chechans, etc on the oppositions side? Do you think all non-syrians should withdraw? Do you agree that Hezbollah have men on the ground in Syria whereas America have not. Are you ready to condemn Hezbollah's involvement?
clairefontaine wrote: » This is a Middle eastern problem. Let them deal with it. The US should stay out of it.
realweirdo wrote: » What is the answer? Prayer? Fasting? More UN diplomacy? Give us a really seriously credibile alternative. You are just repeating the same naive nonsense over and over about how Assad would change if people asked him nicely, how he would have handed over his chemical weapons if only people would have asked him nicely. So far I am hearing waffle from you and others about how this could be tried or that could be tried, just hollow talk with nothing to back it up, the kind of talk that Assad has always ignored and has never listened to, the kind of talk that Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon are the world's foremost experts at...talk talk talk....which Assad ignores ignores ignores.... The Americans haven't used bombs..yet..they said they wouldn't use them unless Assad refused to hand over his CW. If he doesn't hand them over I hope they flatten his presidential palace, I make no bones about that....the guy is a mass murdering thug.
bumper234 wrote: » So was Bush so is Obama....maybe the rest of the world should start calling for the white house to be bombed?
realweirdo wrote: » So was Stalin...lets just do whataboutery from now on on this thread, it seems to be the only thing you're good at...now your turn...
bumper234 wrote: » Assad kills innocent people lets bomb the shìt out of him Obama kills innocent people lets give him a fùcking nobel peace prize.
donegal__road wrote: » In 2000, Saddam switched from the dollar to the euro for oil payments.. because 'he did not want to deal with the currency of the enemy'.. the US moved on him 2 years later.in 2010, Gaddafi announced he was going to drop the dollar in favour of the Dinar for trading oil. This move literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a "threat" to the financial security of the world. The "Insiders" were apparently panicking over Gadhafi's plan. So they bombed Libya in 2011.In 2011, Iran started trading oil for gold with Turkey and other countries. The reason being that the US imposed sanctions on Iran, which meant that Iran was barred from using the SWIFT system... forcing Iran to barter. .
Jonny7 wrote: » Conspiracy theories is the forum you're looking for
esteve wrote: » Is what he wrote not true?
realweirdo wrote: » If you ignore a lot of facts, its true such as the fact that the UNSC, Arab League, NATO and dozens of countries supported the intervention in Libya including Scandanavian countries as well as Belgium. Were they also all trying to overthrow Gaddafi because of his alleged move to trading oil with gold? That's the problem with a lot of these conspiracies, they only work if you ignore a lot of things.
Jonny7 wrote: » There's little evidence. Gadaffi had dozens of crackpot ideas, the "United States of Africa", a gold dinar, abolishing Switzerland and so on.. Most of these countries (Iraq, Libya, Iran) have been under sanctions by the West/World for decades - they have sought alternative ways of trading, Iran switched to trading oil via rial/gold/euro/etc over a year and a half ago.
bumper234 wrote: » Yeah around the same time the US starter beating the war drum about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Coincidence?
Jonny7 wrote: » Won't find any of these theories in mainstream anything, because they are just theories. When they strike a certain narrative they are seized upon by the relevant blog/editorial sites that do their best to pose as news articles.. and of course our favorite foreign propaganda sites if they are in any way anti-Western or take a nice juicy shot at Israel.
bumper234 wrote: » So we should only believe it's true if it comes from fox, cnn, nbc etc?
alastair wrote: » Rather better to only believe them, or at least give them some degree of credibility, if they have some evidence to support the mooted theories. Otherwise it's just a work of creative fiction.
donegal__road wrote: » In the months leading up to the invasion of Libya, Gaddafi called on African countries and other Muslim countries to come together and join the new currency he intended to establish, the Dinar. .
realweirdo wrote: » You're using Russia Today as a source? Seriously? You might as well use the Disney Channel or the back of a rice crispie box as a source.
