It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Putin slams US on Syria, says partners have 'mush' for brains

page: 2
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

Opps

Guess thats what the US needs to expect when its foreign policy is formed by retards.

Does Obama keep a bunch of "special" people hidden in a room and form policy on there random rantings and scribbles? Or do they just have a big spinning board they pick options from at random?

Before I get labled as a putin lover by our resident shills I cant say putin is much better as still waiting on him to admit thats theres russian troops in Ukraine




posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I would say fighting ISIS and restoring order under the official government are one in the same goal.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Putin supports a dictator, if you support Putin you support dictators.
Sure the US has a few serious ME issues, but so do the brits, france, germany, the netherlands... We all created this mess together and supporting Assad is just as wrong as supporting IS.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
Putin supports a dictator, if you support Putin you support dictators.
Sure the US has a few serious ME issues, but so do the brits, france, germany, the netherlands... We all created this mess together and supporting Assad is just as wrong as supporting IS.


Yet the USA happily is propping up Saudi Arabia , likely the most brutal and oppressive dictatorship in the ME.

Pot calling the kettle black.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Saudi Arabia has laws, Assad has poison. I hope you see the difference?



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: crazyewok

Saudi Arabia has laws, Assad has poison. I hope you see the difference?


Nope all I see is hypocrisy .

A tyranny is a tyranny is a tyranny.

To say SA is worthy of support is #ing insane!

But hey maybe not enough women are flogged and protesters beheaded for you under Assad?
edit on 14-10-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

What?
My point is SA has laws Assad kills randomly. I have no clue what you're trying to say, i don't speak polemic.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: crazyewok

What?
My point is SA has laws Assad kills randomly. I have no clue what you're trying to say, i don't speak polemic.


Well we are at a impasse as I don't know what your trying to say.

I dont see how Assads "laws" are any worse than Saudi Arabia "laws".

Infact Syria before the war made SA look positively saint like.

As for after war broke out? Well its a civil war, there are inevitability bloody......



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
The truth of the matter is the only substantial army in Syria with actual boots on the ground is the Syrian army.

So if Assad is gone, no army.

The only logical solution to defeating Isis in Syria is to first get rid of those who would topple Assad and hence dismantle the army and then go after Isis in full force.

Once Isis is gone from Syria then discussions and diplomatic talks can then be had about wether Assad is the right man to lead Syria. The only people who should be allowed to decide about Assad being leader are the Syrian people. By this I mean the whole population, not a minority who decide terrorism is the right way to go.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
Putin supports a dictator, if you support Putin you support dictators.
Sure the US has a few serious ME issues, but so do the brits, france, germany, the netherlands... We all created this mess together and supporting Assad is just as wrong as supporting IS.


Really huh?

Let's see what Putin says on Assad after the war is over then,,,,,




Putin and Obama have the same end plan - Assad needs to go. The difference is that Russia sees supporting the Syrian army whom just happens to be controlled by Assad at this point needs to be supported so that when ISIS is defeated Syria stands a chance of an orderly transition to a new government,

Obama on the other hand wants to blow the crap out of the government and leave a nasty power vacuum, Just like in Libya, and Afghanistan and Iraq......

So support the current govt then bye bye Assad with reforms after ISIS, or blow the whole country up, destroy the government and all social infrastructure in the hopes that maybe this time an Islamic militant group will not arise and make life 100 times worse for the average citizen.

Maybe Putin is not such a bad bet after all............



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

Isn't this the reason why we're supposed to have a free press? Shouldn't our media be calling Obama and Kerry out on this? Let's hear it from the horses mouth on why they won't provide Russia with targets? If Putin is lying, the truth will eventually come out. On the other hand, if the U.S. is lying about their true intentions in Syria, it will only cause more Americans to distrust our government and rally support against our intervention in the middle east.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Yeah the US press is no more "free" than Russias.

Its full of propaganda, just presented in a diffrent way.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: uncommitted

I would say fighting ISIS and restoring order under the official government are one in the same goal.


I can't say I agree with that. The rebel forces aren't aligned with ISIS, so attacking them isn't fighting ISIS.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: uncommitted

I would say fighting ISIS and restoring order under the official government are one in the same goal.


I can't say I agree with that. The rebel forces aren't aligned with ISIS, so attacking them isn't fighting ISIS.


You kill ISIS. but without a effective government then what?

Another group of psychopaths will just rise up.

Haven't the USA learned anything from Afganstian, Iraq and Libya? or any of its forced regimes change round the world ? If you force a regime change without a effective movement in place then your just going to # things up more.

And end of the day regime changes SHOULD BE NONE OF OUR #ING GOD DAM BUSINESS! What goes on in another country's disputes should be NONE of our concern! Zilch. Only thing WE should be concerned with is the elimination of ISIS which is a intentional threat.
edit on 14-10-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

How do you restore peace to a nation with multiple groups with multiple agendas all fighting on the ground?

You pick a side and you back it then fight anyone opposing it.

It's war tactics 101.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: uncommitted

How do you restore peace to a nation with multiple groups with multiple agendas all fighting on the ground?

You pick a side and you back it then fight anyone opposing it.

It's war tactics 101.


Obvious you just hand all sides a bunch of guns and watch them fight it out hunger games styles stupid!

That been 101 in US foreign policy since the 50's and has such a great tract record of working..........


/sarcasm.

edit on 14-10-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: sickoftheliesPUTIN SPEAKING THE TRUTH? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


"Accidents."



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: uncommitted

I would say fighting ISIS and restoring order under the official government are one in the same goal.


I can't say I agree with that. The rebel forces aren't aligned with ISIS, so attacking them isn't fighting ISIS.


You kill ISIS. but without a effective government then what?

Another group of psychopaths will just rise up.

Haven't the USA learned anything from Afganstian, Iraq and Libya? or any of its forced regimes change round the world ? If you force a regime change without a effective movement in place then your just going to # things up more.

And end of the day regime changes SHOULD BE NONE OF OUR #ING GOD DAM BUSINESS! What goes on in another country's disputes should be NONE of our concern! Zilch. Only thing WE should be concerned with is the elimination of ISIS which is a intentional threat.


I completely agree with your last paragraph, and that's why I disagree with some of your other points. ISIS isn't confined to Syria, it just so happens they have a major presence there and are apparently using the location to profit from oil. America (and other countries) is targeting ISIS, not rebels fighting for regime change. Russia is not, they are trying to quell a revolt against their preferred dictator - the two are completely different. I'm a bit surprised, I thought this is obvious and clear - it requires no conspiracy minded theory, it's just fact.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: uncommitted

How do you restore peace to a nation with multiple groups with multiple agendas all fighting on the ground?

You pick a side and you back it then fight anyone opposing it.

It's war tactics 101.


Who is trying to restore peace? Attacking ISIS isn't about restoring peace in Syria, it's about removing the largest terrorist threat globally. Restoring peace by dropping bombs on people who are opposed to the current government (which is what Russia appear to be doing) is hardly restring peace, it's propping up a dictatorship.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I think you missed out the part where the USA are arming rebels (not ISIS) and pursuing regime change. Of course it doesn't help that said weapons and equipment seem to end up in the hands of ISIS.


edit on 14-10-2015 by midicon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join