In a few of my recent threads, it seems those who support American/NATO policy are increasingly pointing out that there are two sides to what is
playing out and I will admit, it is something myself and many others on ATS overlook when criticising western foreign policy.
As the NATO nations are funding and training rebels to overthrow Assad, at the core of this policy is the control of resources and key transportation
routes in the middle east region. Naturally, Russia is one of the biggest opponents to the NATO nations in this context. Rather than America and
Russia openly fighting it out, they are using proxy wars and military campaigns that seek to improve a certain side's 'national interest' without the
two big teams having to fight it out directly.
Russia is the main reason that America/NATO has to 'justify' military campaigns. If Russia was not present as an ally of Syria, the west could just
go in and 'do the job' and take Assad out. But international politics dictates that if the west wants regime change (which translates to control of a
nation for their own 'national interests'), then there needs to be international justification.
NATO can't just bomb Syria because Russia would not accept it. This is why we saw the 'rebels' being funded in Libya and now too Syria. The
escalating violence, especially when the government forces fight back is used as a reason to start a military campaign under the 'Right To Protect'.
NATO and Russia are fighting a geopolitical battle on an international scale, the tragedy being it is the people who happen to live in these nations
that suffer as a result.
So I'm well aware there are two sides to what is going on. I understand that to Russia, Syria has importance. That's why Russia arms the Syrian army
With all that said, if we placed the actions of NATO nations and Russia on some weighing scales, I highly doubt they would balance out.
Feel free to correct me but at this present time and throughout the entire 21st century so far, it has been America and her NATO allies that have
been easily the most aggressive in trying to expand their influence and control in the world. Can we list anything that even comes remotely close in
terms of Russia waging wars as has American and her allies?
Iraq, Afghan and Libya are already ticked off, Syria is being tackled now and Iran is
almost certainly on this agenda as well.
From Russia's point of view, they have every right to arm the Assad regime to prevent regime change. If they didn't do so, America would already have
control of another nation in the region. America and NATO are scooping up control of the middle east region. Not only that, they are using some of
the most evil tactics to justify what they are doing- only recently America pledged $40 million to hep fund the 'rebels' in Syria. We know from
reports that a good portion of the FSA is Al Qaeda, so it is clear that the policy makers do not value human life whatsoever when it comes to
implementing their agenda. Nor do they have the benefit of the Syrian people at heart- they just want as much chaos as is possible in Syria, they are
even instigating cross border violence on this road to military intervention.
If we look to the media and keep in mind this 'cold war style' battle between America and Russia, the news agencies provide all the answers we need.
A big part of waging these wars is propaganda. If we look at 'Russia Today', they are constantly reporting their propaganda against the west. Sadly,
they don't have to try to hard to make America and NATO look to be the bad guys because THEY ARE funding rebels to destabilise the country and fight
the regime and they have already waged two large scale wars this century already!
Next time you watch the American MSM, Russia is rarely mentioned in the reports. Considering what is at the core of this geopolitical battle, you
would think the MSM would be in overdrive with propaganda against Russia but this is not the case. The western MSM is simply continuing to push the
idea that Syrian forces are killing civilians, they will keep this up until the violence escalates into militaty intervention. This says a lot
because 'Russia Today' can point out the flaws in American foreign policy and what they are really doing, yet at the moment, the western MSM has
nothing on Russia.
Another way of addressing this point is to ask, if Russia had been waging these deceitful wars, then surely the American MSM would be in propaganda
heaven? But they haven't, so therefore ask yourself, why is this the case? The answer should be self explanatory.
Yes, Russia is arming the Syrian army. But why should Russia sit back and allow what happened to Libya happen in Syria? The reason the west is quiet
regards to propaganda against Russia is down to the fact that Russia has every right to support Assad in Syria, because not doing so would result in a
key geopolitical nation falling into the hands of America/NATO.
If you are going to reply to this thread, please refrain from insults and let's try and actually discuss this properly.
edit on 15-10-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)