Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

bumper234

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.

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.

Mr.Micro

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.

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.

clairefontaine

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.

And because we know this, makes me suspect this venture has nothing to do with supporting democracy.

realweirdo

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.

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.

realweirdo

clairefontaine wrote: »

And because we know this, makes me suspect this venture has nothing to do with supporting democracy.

Another simplistic view of a rather complex conflict.
Getting democracy to take hold in Syria post Assad will require a gigantic international effort involving the EU, Arab League, possibly UN (although they are hopeless) and lots more organisations. It will require the help of the Germans, Italians and a lot more countries.
But so far none of these countries have shown the slightest interest. They just wish Syria would go away.
If America disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, the Syrian conflict would go on, no mistake about it.

clairefontaine

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.

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

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.

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

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?

This is a Middle eastern problem. Let them deal with it.

The US should stay out of it.

Mr.Micro

clairefontaine wrote: »

This is a Middle eastern problem. Let them deal with it.

The US should stay out of it.

Agreed, so far it's intervention in the Middle East is an ongoing mess. Iraq is still not stable and the ramifications may still manifest in the future. I never believe that the actions of the US are ever pure altruism. It always has an agenda IMO. Cynical I know. The US is always quite happy to see democracy,so long as it gets to influence who will be the candidates, as friends of the US.

realweirdo

clairefontaine wrote: »

This is a Middle eastern problem. Let them deal with it.

The US should stay out of it.

That is not the way these things work and you well know it. For several reasons. You know well that when you ignore certain things in the middle east today, they end up in the west's backyard tomorrow. Just let's say Al Nusra or Al Quida in Iraq who are both very strong now in Syria, make significant advances in Syria to the point where they capture chemical weapons stockpiles.
Do you think we can still ignore the problem then?

Removing Syria's CW is a priority for everyone. It's no use saying in years to come why didn't someone do something?

The Americans are the only country in the world who issued the red line over Assad's CW use. They are the only country to back it up with credible force. They are the only country who has brought Assad to the negotiating table. They are the only one who have the capability to persuade him to give them up.

Like I said, getting those CW out of Syria is a major issue for international security.

bumper234

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.

So was Bush so is Obama....maybe the rest of the world should start calling for the white house to be bombed?

realweirdo

bumper234 wrote: »

So was Bush so is Obama....maybe the rest of the world should start calling for the white house to be bombed?

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

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...

Assad kills innocent people lets bomb the shìt out of him

Obama kills innocent people lets give him a fùcking nobel peace prize.

realweirdo

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.

More whataboutery....

Obama's use of drones is a seperate issue...if you want to debate the rights and wrongs of it open a new thread and we can discuss it there, if you feel so strongly about it.

donegal__road

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

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.






.

Conspiracy theories is the forum you're looking for

donegal__road

Jonny7 wrote: »

Conspiracy theories is the forum you're looking for

If countries were allowed to continue trading commodities for gold, it would mean the trend would spread like wildfire and it would mean the end of the petrodollar. The USA have spent years establishing the dollar as the unit of currency by which oil is traded (as you know).. if an oil producing country threatens to drop the dollar when selling their oil, in favour of another currency, or bartering for other commodities, the USA will act on that country sooner rather than later.

In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euro.. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the US dollar.

Iran has created its own Iranian Oil bourse which started selling oil in gold, euros, dollars, and Japanese yen.

In 2006 Venezuela indicated support for Iran's decision to offer global oil trade in the euro currency.

One of the driving forces of US foreign policy has been maintaining the dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced.






.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Conspiracy theories is the forum you're looking for

Is what he wrote not true?

realweirdo

esteve wrote: »

Is what he wrote not true?

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.

donegal__road

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

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.





.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

Is what he wrote not true?

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

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.

Yeah around the same time the US starter beating the war drum about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Coincidence?

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Yeah around the same time the US starter beating the war drum about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Coincidence?

Actually it started back in 2002. Really kicked off in 2006, capped off with a unanimous UNSC resolution at the end of the year. Rouhani and Israeli intelligence has really cooled off the whole episode for now.

donegal__road

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.

article in The New American

article in Russia Today

The Centre for Research on Globalization

The Examiner


*you probably wont find any of these theories in the mainstream media if thats what you mean by little evidence. I thought you would have heard of the hypothesis of Petrodollar Warfare.

Here is an interesting British made documentary on petrodollar conflicts in the Middle East involving the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52DpTsHkd2U

Jonny7

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

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.

So we should only believe it's true if it comes from fox, cnn, nbc etc?

alastair

bumper234 wrote: »

So we should only believe it's true if it comes from fox, cnn, nbc etc?

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.

bumper234

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.

Cool.

can i expect to see this evidence anytime soon?

realweirdo

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.


.

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.

donegal__road

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.

not according to Hillary Clinton, who has put Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and China's CCTV ahead of American domestic news channels.... in her own words,

'The U.S. is losing an information war to alternative media outlets, including RT'

here is Hillary Clinton addressing congress on the issue of American TV trailing behind non-Western media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6sYB5d1Bu4

Faux News, ABC, CNN, NBC are a monolithic media.

realweirdo

donegal__road wrote: »

not according to Hillary Clinton, who has put Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and China's CCTV ahead of American domestic news channels.... in her own words,

'The U.S. is losing an information war to alternative media outlets, including RT'

here is Hillary Clinton addressing congress on the issue of American TV trailing behind non-Western media.

Faux News, ABC, CNN, NBC are a monolithic media.

What she means is the US is losing the propaganda war to outlets like RT. That might be true. It's very hard to win against outlets that peddle conspiracy after conspiracy, very hard indeed. Like I said you'd get more information from the back of a Rice Crispies pack.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

So we should only believe it's true if it comes from fox, cnn, nbc etc?

Journalistic standards and integrity (let's exclude Fox which is a conservative mouthpiece, possibly CNN too)

WakeUp

On Gaddafis alleged plan to introduce the dinar this is an interview I havent seen before only went looking for it after reading and watching the links in the past few pages of the thread. CNNs Amanpour is certainly there asking questions the other two beside her Im not so sure who they are. We dont hear the first question straight into Gaddafi replying pointing his finger getting very defensive about things. As far as I can tell this was taken from a live webcam stream posted on an Arabic forum if anyone happens to come across the entire interview do please post it would really like to see it and hear his answer to the last question he was asked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFVFv2Msr0Q

donegal__road

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.

a theory maybe, but a well documented theory imho... this was published in 2005

Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar. by William Clark

...the fact that Iraq had switched to paying for oil in euros—rather than US dollars—the Bush administration’s unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency standard.

After the Bretton Woods collapse in the 70's, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger knew that the abandonment of the gold standard under the Bretton Woods system would cause a decline in the global demand of the dollar. So the US and the Saudi royal family made an agreement. The US would offer military protection for Saudi oil fields, and in return the Saudi's would price their oil sales in US dollars...so the Saudis were to refuse all other currencies, except the U.S. dollar as payment for their oil. Soon after this, all of the oil producing nations of OPEC agreed to price their oil in US dollars and to invest surplus oil proceeds in US government debt securities in exchange for similar offers by the US.





.

Jonny7

donegal__road wrote: »

not according to Hillary Clinton, who has put Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and China's CCTV ahead of American domestic news channels.... in her own words,

'The U.S. is losing an information war to alternative media outlets, including RT'

She is saying that they are winning the information war (propaganda).

There's a large market in the Russia (and elsewhere) for media that portrays the US in a bad light, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Eggy Baby!

realweirdo wrote: »

Convienently ignore the fact that America confronted and helped defeat three of the great evils of the 20th century Nazi Germany, Emperial Japan and the USSR. (Ireland stayed neutral). Ignore the fact that but for the US, South Korea would be a communist run sh*thole like North Korea. Ignore the fact that America is the biggest provider of humanitarian assistance in the world by far. Ignore the fact that America is about the only nation confronting Islamic terrorism, yes in a war where there is collatoral damage, but the alternative is to allow the spread of Islamofascism unchecked. It really is a case of either or in this situation. Ignore the fact that America sent the Taliban packing from large parts of Afghanistan.

And basically ignore every good deed America has ever done in its history.

You don't do balance do you?

Bold:The USSR fell by itself. And the US didn't help (notice "help") defeat Nazism or Japanese fascist imperialism out of the good of it's heart. There was an obvious strategic interest. You'd have to be blind not to see that. For every good deed there is an appalling atrocity. I'm not going to give you a history lesson because these things are so well known by this stage even by people who have little to no grasp of history. I suggest you go to Eason's and buy a history book (not a school textbook) and broaden your knowledge with regard to these things. I could give you a list if you really desired, or some material in a PM.

Here's a video- watch if it you want. I don't particularly care if you don't, though (and I wouldn't be surprised): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg

I noticed that you conveniently ignored the rather well-known fact that South Korea was a dictatorship truly unique in it's evil behavior. You have only shown your sheer pig-headed ignorance of history when you handwave the murder of up to 1 million suspected communists by Rhee's awful regime.

Italics: Overall, maybe, but considering that it is the country with the highest GDP in the world, it's contribution is rather low. The USA is 15th in the Humanitarian Response Index, hardly the best in the world by far.

Secondly, a lot of humanitarian aid is wasted anyway as it poured down poor African corruption sinks.

Now, regarding your spiel against "Islamofascism" (a neologism invented to vindicate US behaviour in the middle east)- most of these groups either:

A- Received funding and training from the good ol' USA
or
B- Were formed in response to perceived American/British/French/etc. imperialist behaviour in the Middle East

Underlined: Of course the US has done some good. Then again, the USSR (which you hate and despise because it was the antithesis of your beloved USA) was also the biggest contributor to the defeat of fascism and did other things besides.

Now, stop trying to derail the thread with your bizarre shrill pro-American rants and let's get some ground covered regarding the debate in Syria. We all know you love the USA and would like to have it's babies, but nobody here particularly gives a ****. You are ruining a perfectly good thread.

Yours exasperatedly,
Eggy.

donegal__road

Jonny7 wrote: »

She is saying that they are winning the information war (propaganda).

There's a large market in the Russia (and elsewhere) for media that portrays the US in a bad light, regardless of whether it's true or not.

there is a large market in the US (and elsewhere) for media that portrays non western countries in a bad light, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Jonny7

donegal__road wrote: »

there is a large market in the US (and elsewhere) for media that portrays non western countries in a bad light, regardless of whether it's true or not.

True, and when you can see through both, you're probably on the right track.

donegal__road

Jonny7 wrote: »

True, and when you can see through both, you're probably on the right track.

ok, I'll put it to you like this... I grew up listening to bbc reportage on events during the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland. I happen to live in very close proximity to Northern Ireland, and heard eye witness accounts of what actually happened on the ground from locals... I soon realised that what was being reported in the news, was manipulated to support the British agenda. My awareness of propaganda and the public mind began around that time.

Jonny7

donegal__road wrote: »

ok, I'll put it to you like this... I grew up listening to bbc reportage on events during the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland. I happen to live in very close proximity to Northern Ireland, and heard eye witness accounts of what actually happened on the ground from locals... I soon realised that what was being reported in the news, was manipulated to support the British agenda. My awareness of propaganda and the public mind began around that time.

Yah, I watched both, Irish and English and sometimes I'd notice a different slant on the same incident.

However there's a fairly large gap between that and the outright propaganda and conspiracy mongering attitudes of state-run stations like RT. Different kettle of fish altogether.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yah, I watched both, Irish and English and sometimes I'd notice a different slant on the same incident.

However there's a fairly large gap between that and the outright propaganda and conspiracy mongering attitudes of state-run stations like RT. Different kettle of fish altogether.

Are you honestly saying that American news channels are better than Russian because American news channels are not full of propaganda? :eek:

Tony EH

The best course of action is to try and watch/read as much as you can and form your own opinion based on what you can get.

donegal__road

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yah, I watched both, Irish and English and sometimes I'd notice a different slant on the same incident.

However there's a fairly large gap between that and the outright propaganda and conspiracy mongering attitudes of state-run stations like RT. Different kettle of fish altogether.

You would be more aware of the blatant slant if you talked to people who witnessed what actually happened versus what the BBC (and RTE) reported. Remember we had section 31 of the broadcasting act in operation here until Michael D Higgns had it lifted in 1993.

There are certain things that RT have fore-casted recently that you will not hear on American news carriers... for example, China establishing the Yuan as the new world currency.

But if you are looking for well written articles without the state sponsored spin, then look no further than Indy-media

and Spiked-online

realweirdo

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Bold:The USSR fell by itself. And the US didn't help (notice "help") defeat Nazism or Japanese fascist imperialism out of the good of it's heart. There was an obvious strategic interest. You'd have to be blind not to see that. For every good deed there is an appalling atrocity. I'm not going to give you a history lesson because these things are so well known by this stage even by people who have little to no grasp of history. I suggest you go to Eason's and buy a history book (not a school textbook) and broaden your knowledge with regard to these things. I could give you a list if you really desired, or some material in a PM.

Yours exasperatedly,
Eggy.

To say the US had no role in the fall of the USSR is frankly the most bizarre thing I've read on here. The USSR ran out of money. Much of it had to do with keeping up an arms race with the USA. Another major part was fighting a costly war in Afghanistan which the US fought as a proxy conflict. Defeat in Afghanistan was the beginning of the end. That's my last comment on the USSR as like you said I will try to keep it relevant to Syria from now on. You can reply to this post if you want but that's it.

realweirdo

bumper234 wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that American news channels are better than Russian because American news channels are not full of propaganda? :eek:

Look at how Russian media treat the political opposition and how American TV treat the political opposition - its a good start.

bumper234

realweirdo wrote: »

Look at how Russian media treat the political opposition and how American TV treat the political opposition - its a good start.

Ok let me reword this. Do you think American media are not full of propaganda? Do you think that the American public get the full/whole/truthful story from American media outlets?

biko

To me this is an internal conflict between many opposing factions and the old government.
In a few years time it will go the way of Lebanon which used to be the best country in the ME before the troubles started.

The UK/US haven't even managed to withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq, what are they thinking starting another war?

Scofflaw

realweirdo wrote: »

To say the US had no role in the fall of the USSR is frankly the most bizarre thing I've read on here. The USSR ran out of money. Much of it had to do with keeping up an arms race with the USA. Another major part was fighting a costly war in Afghanistan which the US fought as a proxy conflict. Defeat in Afghanistan was the beginning of the end. That's my last comment on the USSR as like you said I will try to keep it relevant to Syria from now on. You can reply to this post if you want but that's it.

Yes, let's aim to stay on topic - and Eggy Baby!, could you dial the exasperation down a notch, please, or at least the expression of it?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that American news channels are better than Russian because American news channels are not full of propaganda? :eek:

I was referring to Irish/British media compared to Russian outlets like RT.

Reporters without borders ranks Russia pretty far down the list in terms of press freedom.

donegal__road

Jonny7 wrote: »

I was referring to Irish/British media compared to Russian outlets like RT.

Reporters without borders ranks Russia pretty far down the list in terms of press freedom.

Reporters Without Borders are funded primarily by the US state budget through USAID.. other funders include National Endowment for Democracy, who are sponsored by Bush neo-cons such as Otto Reich. You could hardly call RWB un-biased now, could you?

financial ties between French-based NGO Reporters Without Borders and US Government/CIA front organizations








.