US Sending Lethal Aid to Syrian Rebels.

[monty16]

http://rt.com/news/164536-syria-rebels-supplied-lethal/

Maybe they have finally figured out who the good guys are? It couldn't be an effort to overthrow a government and install a US friendly one in it's place could it?

[Shady]

http://rt.com/news/164536-syria-rebels-supplied-lethal/

Maybe they have finally figured out who the good guys are? It couldn't be an effort to overthrow a government and install a US friendly one in it's place could it?

I think most would rather see a US friendly government, than an Iranian/Taliban friendly one.

[monty16]

I think most would rather see a US friendly government, than an Iranian/Taliban friendly one.

That's a pretty wild assumption Shady. I think it's none of the US's business and furthermore, if you fear a Taliban or Iranian government then it's likely got a lot to do with the US meddling in the ME for oil. They don't just hate the US for no reason you know.

Be aware that in my opinion the best thing Iran can do is get their nuclear weapon as a deterrent to US aggression. Now that's something you can work with. (be cautious to not vilify me now because you know what that gets you)

[Shady]

That's a pretty wild assumption Shady. I think it's none of the US's business and furthermore, if you fear a Taliban or Iranian government then it's likely got a lot to do with the US meddling in the ME for oil. They don't just hate the US for no reason you know.

Be aware that in my opinion the best thing Iran can do is get their nuclear weapon as a deterrent to US aggression. Now that's something you can work with. (be cautious to not vilify me now because you know what that gets you)

I think your opinion is short sighted. America doesn't need the ME for oil. It will soon be the top producer of oil and natural gas in the world. But there's a reason why every country in the middle east besides Syria and Iran are against a nuclear Iran. All it's going to do is start a nuclear arms race in that part of the world, with Saudi Arabia the next to push for such weapons.

[monty16]

I think your opinion is short sighted. America doesn't need the ME for oil. It will soon be the top producer of oil and natural gas in the world. But there's a reason why every country in the middle east besides Syria and Iran are against a nuclear Iran. All it's going to do is start a nuclear arms race in that part of the world, with Saudi Arabia the next to push for such weapons.

Yeah right, the US is in the ME for the cabbage crop. And it won't stop until Iran becomes too big to bully. That's what nukes are for.

[Shady]

Yeah right, the US is in the ME for the cabbage crop. And it won't stop until Iran becomes too big to bully. That's what nukes are for.

Aside from Afghanistan, which will be done in 2016, the US isn't in the Middle East.

[monty16]

Aside from Afghanistan, which will be done in 2016, the US isn't in the Middle East.

In truth the US is in Iraq still and will stay there to occupy that country against the Iraqi people's wishes. Same in Afghanistan of course. I'm surprised that you would think otherwise and it leads me to believe that you aren't allowed to know the truth in your country. It wouldn't surprise me as you aren't allowe d to travel to certain countries either. Did you know that?

[monty16]

how many US soldiers still occupy Iraq?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-16/news/bs-ed-iraq-20120216_1_embassy-staff-iraqi-politicians-security-forces

That was uncovering the lies from 2012 so how many are they still lying about Shady?

[Moonlight Graham]

U.S. up to its old tricks.

[WWWTT]

I think your opinion is short sighted. America doesn't need the ME for oil. It will soon be the top producer of oil and natural gas in the world. But there's a reason why every country in the middle east besides Syria and Iran are against a nuclear Iran. All it's going to do is start a nuclear arms race in that part of the world, with Saudi Arabia the next to push for such weapons.

Pakistan and Israel.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Aside from Afghanistan, which will be done in 2016, the US isn't in the Middle East.

The drone strike king never left.

Lots of US vessels surrounding the ME.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. sends "lethal aid" all over the world, including Canada. So what ?

[GostHacked]

Would arming the rebels go against some Geneva conventions?

[overthere]

It does not matter now, the civil war in Syria is effectively over and Assad has won.

The next couple of years will see 'mopping up' operations.

In this case, mopping up means just that- Assad slaughtering the remnants of opposition. cleansing every village of any dissent with barrel bombs and chemical weapons, while Russia, Iran and Monty16 cheer.

[GostHacked]

It does not matter now, the civil war in Syria is effectively over and Assad has won.

The next couple of years will see 'mopping up' operations.

In this case, mopping up means just that- Assad slaughtering the remnants of opposition. cleansing every village of any dissent with barrel bombs and chemical weapons, while Russia, Iran and Monty16 cheer.

The rebels were also accused of using chemical weapons and many other horrific things.

[overthere]

Yeah, Assad claimed the rebels were using those weapons, but he is internationally recognized as a lying sack of shit.

Assad was demonstrably using them as confirmed by independent international observers.

Assad is a butcher, and is going to kill everybody that opposes him in the slightest way now. Watch what happens now, since he has 'legitimized' himself with a farcical election.

[GostHacked]

Yeah, Assad claimed the rebels were using those weapons, but he is internationally recognized as a lying sack of shit.

Assad was demonstrably using them as confirmed by independent international observers.

Assad is a butcher, and is going to kill everybody that opposes him in the slightest way now. Watch what happens now, since he has 'legitimized' himself with a farcical election.

Oh come on the west tried THREE times to pin chemical weapons on Assad. Each time resulting in 'inconclusive'. Don't forget that Iraq had WMDs too. AKA failed propaganda to start a war. The west was even part of the reason in the delay of the declaration and removal of the chemical weapons from Syria. Some ships were prevented from entering port that were designated to haul off the weapons.

I don't like Harper but if he managed to fend off rebel terrorists sponsored by foreign countries, I'd be voting him back in too.

[monty16]

Assad's negative image on the world scene has been created by the US propagandists. It never was proven that his side used bio/chem weapons and besides, it's quite unlikely he would have provided the provocation the US needed for very minimal gain.

What could he possibly gain with a gas attack killing a couple of dozen civilians when he could use conventional WMD's of the sort the US is using every day on it's victims.

Think it through folks. It's all US baloney!

The US/Israel cause can be argued though. Should they be able to control the ME or should the Arab nations of the world be able to control their own destiny that comes with nuclear weapons? And then, regardless of what we think, the inevitable is coming for sure. It will bring peace!

[overthere]

And then, regardless of what we think, the inevitable is coming for sure. It will bring peace!

It will bring slaughter.

But enjoy if you must.

Increasingly, your posts make me throw up in my mouth a bit.

[dre]

It does not matter now, the civil war in Syria is effectively over and Assad has won.

The next couple of years will see 'mopping up' operations.

In this case, mopping up means just that- Assad slaughtering the remnants of opposition. cleansing every village of any dissent with barrel bombs and chemical weapons, while Russia, Iran and Monty16 cheer.

I dont think we would have seen any less slaughter if the rebels had won.... It just would have been Christians and Allawites getting slaughtered instead.

I dont see any reason to choose the FSA over Assad.

[monty16]

It will bring slaughter.

But enjoy if you must.

Increasingly, your posts make me throw up in my mouth a bit.

I say it will bring peace because it will be the nuclear deterrent to US aggression. No nation that is nuclear armed is going to become a victim of nuclear weapons. None ever has and that's for good reason.

But think of it also in other terms. As nations gain the nuclear weapons they require as a deterrent, they also gain respect at the same time. The US (or the West for that matter) begins meaningful peaceful dialogue with those nations. It's beginning to happen with North Korea but in the interim, N. Korea is safe. It's beginning to happen with Iran even before the fact too. I would suggest that the increasingly obvious threat of Iran getting it's nuclear deterrent has kept that country safe for at least the last few years since Iraq fell victim.

And of course, overall since the end of WW2, the nuclear threat has saved the world from another world war. We could argue that it has either saved the US from annihilation or it has saved the Soviet Union from annihilation.

By annihilation I mean, one large nuclear weapon being dropped on either that would have led to immediate capitulation.

Think about it next time before you throw up in your mouth again. And I might add, what makes me throw up in my mouth is US aggression such as has been visited on over 30 countries since around 1930 or so. I throw up in my mouth when people try to tell us the US was trying to save the people!

[monty16]

I dont think we would have seen any less slaughter if the rebels had won.... It just would have been Christians and Allawites getting slaughtered instead.

I dont see any reason to choose the FSA over Assad.

Definitely wrong that the war is over. The US has renewed and increased it's efforts to arm Assad's opposition. This is US led revolution and the US doesn't give up in the ME. If it did then Russia will step in to take it's place. Count on it! Russia will just do it in a more subtle way and most likely with less bloodshed. Crimea?

Edited June 11, 2014 by monty16

[overthere]

Definitely wrong that the war is over. The US has renewed and increased it's efforts to arm Assad's opposition. This is US led revolution and the US doesn't give up in the ME. If it did then Russia will step in to take it's place. Count on it! Russia will just do it in a more subtle way and most likely with less bloodshed. Crimea?

I guess you are unaware as to who supports the Assad government with arms and money and an eternal political .'get out of jail free' card at the highest diplomatic levels.

Gee, am I ever surprised you were not aware.

[marcus]

I think most would rather see a US friendly government, than an Iranian/Taliban friendly one.

The above is a misinformed comment. Iran and Taliban are rivals and see each other as enemies.

I rather see an Iran friendly government then a government controlled by al quaeda and other extremist group. The U.S. would be wise not to support Saudi and their terrorist groups like Al Quaeda.

Edited June 12, 2014 by marcus

[Army Guy]

I say it will bring peace because it will be the nuclear deterrent to US aggression. No nation that is nuclear armed is going to become a victim of nuclear weapons. None ever has and that's for good reason.

But think of it also in other terms. As nations gain the nuclear weapons they require as a deterrent, they also gain respect at the same time. The US (or the West for that matter) begins meaningful peaceful dialogue with those nations. It's beginning to happen with North Korea but in the interim, N. Korea is safe. It's beginning to happen with Iran even before the fact too. I would suggest that the increasingly obvious threat of Iran getting it's nuclear deterrent has kept that country safe for at least the last few years since Iraq fell victim.

And of course, overall since the end of WW2, the nuclear threat has saved the world from another world war. We could argue that it has either saved the US from annihilation or it has saved the Soviet Union from annihilation.

By annihilation I mean, one large nuclear weapon being dropped on either that would have led to immediate capitulation.

Think about it next time before you throw up in your mouth again. And I might add, what makes me throw up in my mouth is US aggression such as has been visited on over 30 countries since around 1930 or so. I throw up in my mouth when people try to tell us the US was trying to save the people!

Having a few nuks may give other countries a reason to pause and think, but if the US really had a reason to attack any of them conventional forces would be more than enough....As for falling victim to a nuk strike, Iran would be nothing but glass before they even knew they were under attack....there is not the MAD that the main players had such as Russia, China etc...who owned thousands of war heads just for that reason.....

I think most countries are safe from a nuk strike, not because of nuks they own, but rather the mess they create when detonated, and would likely draw in some of the big players....can you imigine the radiactive cloud that would be created if tehran would to disappear, then drift over to say Russia , killing thousands of russians in the process, poisoning eveything in between....

i think it is this problem that deters anyone from using nuks.....

The last thing we need is a rogue nation such as Iran having it's own nuks, which would be likely used over Israel....a group of people who think becoming a martar is more important than using common sense...would you really want that, to leave that kind of power in someone else hands....that cloud from that type of wpn would drift around the world piosoning everything in its path....there would be a resonse from many nations....

As for Iran being kept safe because of a Nuk program is false. the US current finacial state would proably have more to do with that than anything. that and it would spark a major response from the rest of the ME....it would not be a short conflict....

I think if the US or Russia would have dropped a large nuk on each other or europe it would have been assured MAD, no one would have accepted those type of losses....surrender was not an option, not when you have thousands of war heads.... destroying the entire planet would have been....you don't build that number of systems if you are not going to use them....