User Controls
American foreign policy is completely fucked, what they hell are they doing?.
-
2016-10-15 at 12:15 AM UTCSo the Americans back Syrian rebels (terrorists) because ASSAD IS EVIL CORRUPT DICTATOR KILLING HIS OWN PEOPLE, MURICA MUST PROMOTE DEMOCRACY BECAUSE IT MAKES US ALL SAFE (by giving weapons to "moderates"). A state that is recognized by the UN and America wants to topple it like Libya, okay. I'll play devils advocate on myself and agree that Assad is evil and deserves to be killed like Saddam and Gaddafi.
But then what the FUCK is going on in Yemen?. THEY ARE KILLING THE REBELS/HOUTHI AND BOMBING THEM WITH A SAUDIS. THE REBELS/HOUTHI OVERTHREW a corrupt dictator government exactly like Assad and the the only ones that cared were the Saudis.
Let me get this straight. America is arming rebels at the same time as bombing rebels... LOL
Just because Iran got to the Houthis first I guess Saudi Arabia is making USA their bitch.
Does this make sense to anyone else or am I missing something here?.
-
2016-10-15 at 12:32 AM UTCIt doesn't need to make sense.
-
2016-10-15 at 4:10 AM UTCneither war is about a 'corrupt dictator' or helping anyone but themselves
-
2016-10-15 at 5:40 PM UTClike I posted in that other thread, the two main goals of rekking syria are to secure an oil pipeline and weakening Iran by breaking their allies.
when the US first started stirring up trouble (arab spring etc) they vastly underestimated Assad's popularity, and it's not fallen since. their initial stated goal was to remove Assad because he was a bad, bad man but it was a difficult case to make because the majority of Syrians support him. which is why they keep pushing on, trying to get rid of him but now say their main goal is 'fighting ISIS and Al-Nusra'... even though they indirectly arm both, have destroyed government positions for the former and refuse to attack the latter because they're 'intermingled with moderate rebels'. PROTIP: there are no 'moderate' rebels.
are you familiar with those white helmet faggots? they call themselves the Syrian Civil Defence group... even though a Syrian Civil Defence already exists and has since 1953. this new group is made up of rebels who have on many occasions been spotted on the frontlines and in one case, taking part in an execution video. for a man accused of 'wizaredry'.
the group has received something like $40 million from the UK already... they're essentially fraudulently using the SCD's good name to seem legitimate in an effort to garner support and donations
I'm actually writing a fairly long essay on the Syrian war because the way the mainstream media distorts it irritates me, will post it here once done if you guys are interested in reading it -
2016-10-20 at 3:31 PM UTCAmerican foreign policy resumes to this:
1. Sowing and funding proxy wars by feeding segregation and discrimination in countries that are actually composed of different tribes or traditions.
2. Once they set the kettles aboil, they convince the lower classes (for instance, the Shiites in Irak and the Sunnites in Syria and Lybia) that their government is "opressive" and that they should strive for more freedom. in order to set social tensions even further.
3. Stage a killing to blame it on the ruling caste and fund the rebels whoever they may be in overthrowing the current president, specially because most countries in the Middle East are essentially socialist because of the socio-economic model proposed in the Quran, and therefore, their governments are almost all allied to Russia. Also because most of them were under Russian control during WWII.
4. Once their power structure that bonded them to Russia is crippled, NATO can seek profitable deals with the rebel factions they funded to take over the natural resources of the region (namely oil) or establish military bases and stage a "war on terror" against the same rebels they once armed if they refuse to cheap off their oil and lands to foreign intruders, and thus take over these countries by using their own people, because the treaties and covenants signed after WWII stupidly state that the world's geography shall remain as it was at that very precise moment and that no country could anymore claim "conquest" of another region anymore, so if any nation was interested in controlling another nations land and resources it has to be accomplished by "democracy", so to speak. In other terms, this is not purely due to US foreign relations, but to the hypocritical grasp of the United Nations Organization. -
2016-10-20 at 3:53 PM UTC
I'm actually writing a fairly long essay on the Syrian war because the way the mainstream media distorts it irritates me, will post it here once done if you guys are interested in reading it
I'd read that. -
2016-10-20 at 3:58 PM UTC
2. Once they set the kettles aboil, they convince the lower classes (for instance, the Shiites in Irak and the Sunnites in Syria and Lybia) that their government is "opressive" and that they should strive for more freedom. in order to set social tensions even further.
this is the only thing I disagree with; there never were major sectarian issues in Iraq or Syria until international interference - the SAA for example is mixed Sunni/Shia, slight majority Sunni, and yet they're fighting hard against the majority Sunni separatists. from the interviews I've read, most specifically refugees from Iraq, different sects tended to live in different neighbourhoods but there were no real upper- or lower-classes... intermarriage between them wasn't common, but it wasn't particularly frowned upon, let alone violently opposed as the media would have you believe
the real weapon in terms of sectarianism is Wahhabi Islam... I like the way War Nerd put it when discussing the Empire - "picking up pieces from one part of the world and dropping them where they’d do the most harm" -
2016-10-20 at 6:29 PM UTCYou should watch: A Very Heavy Agenda, if you got a couple bucks to spare.
-
2016-10-20 at 10:57 PM UTCThey pretty much just say lets bomb all asians and were justified always.
-
2016-10-22 at 2:49 AM UTC
this is the only thing I disagree with; there never were major sectarian issues in Iraq or Syria until international interference - the SAA for example is mixed Sunni/Shia, slight majority Sunni, and yet they're fighting hard against the majority Sunni separatists. from the interviews I've read, most specifically refugees from Iraq, different sects tended to live in different neighbourhoods but there were no real upper- or lower-classes… intermarriage between them wasn't common, but it wasn't particularly frowned upon, let alone violently opposed as the media would have you believe
the real weapon in terms of sectarianism is Wahhabi Islam… I like the way War Nerd put it when discussing the Empire - "picking up pieces from one part of the world and dropping them where they’d do the most harm"
Just like I said, they seed discord between the different tribes or factions when the faction to which the ruling caste belongs favours someone else instead of the US. In Syria, for example, president Bashar Al Assad's government is allied to Russia. President Bashar Al Assad is an Alavi, related to the Shiites, but not really Shia. The opposition in the beggining was mostly composed of the poorer Sunnies. Not that they were really poor, but most of the factions that formed the FSA at the beggining hailed from the poorer Sunite provinces along the borders with Israel and Jordan. I dont remember how it all began though, why the protests were happening against Al Assad, but I do remember much was said about the Alevis enjoying greater privileges than the Sunnies and Shias, which is why Sunnite Añ-Quaeda and Sunnite Daesh (ISIS) could settle quite easily there and occupy so much territory so quickly. The Sunnite population pretty much oppened the road for them so that they would defend them against the government.
In the case of Iraq, Hussein's Sunni party was always at much conflict with the local Shiites, with Shiite Iran and it's Soviet allies, with the Kurds, with the Ottomans (Turkey) and with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia God knows why.
