Russia will target US jets in parts of Syria, defence ministry says

From my recollection those inspection reports from El Barendei were not as categorically certain as claimed hereabouts, nothing seemed as absolute as it is described here, Bush portrayed the situation as he needed to for the purpose of justifying intervention, just as one would highlight the beauty of his car rather than it's high mileage if he were trying to sell it.

 

Nah, I am not buying that. The sending of supplies to the USSR was a substitute for what Stalin has been asking the Allies for years - a second front against the 3rd Reich - and that he only got by mid 1944. Between 1941 and 1944, the Soviets pretty much fought Germany alone. These supplies (which many were eliminated en route) may seem a lot to you but they are insignificant in the general Soviet effort: How many ships did loaned battleship Archangelsk fought?

Quite right. Churchill, an aristocrat born into the highest priviledges, couldn't trust the hoi-polloi USSR. Turns out he was right, for at least once in his life!

 

Ha ha ha.

The Soviets beat the Nazis. Might as well make peace with it.

 

Absolutely. This Kurdish state will be poised on Turquey and Iraq. The US (and Israel, and the Sauds) will back it, which will cause instability. As for Syria, they already were democratic - you just didn't like the results. And secular, too.

Imposing law and order is what civilised nations do.

Instability will continue in the ME because it's what the US, Israel and the Arabic Peninsula monarchies want: Chaos out there favors the interests of Big Oil and zionism.

Arab nationalism would be preferable to the mess we've got now. And Islam was the only possible political opposition to the autocratic regimes we put up there, against their people's democartic will. We created this Frankenstein.

Of course, Arabs had their sqabbles before we set fire to the place, but they were largely insignificant and a necessary part of their evolution. Our greed and superiority complex messed it up - we thought that a 200-year civilisation could dictate what a multi-millenial one should do.

And look at us now, already on our decline.

That's what they seem to be projecting, but in fact, Russia won't let go of Syria, bcause if Assad falls, the pipeline from the Arabic peninsula gets the green light, supplying the EU markets that Russia currently deserves. It's just that Putin is a lot more subtle.

The US leads a not-so-cover war on Assad, and therefore, it gives ISIL support and comfort to this end. The US, Israel and the Arabic monarchies should be held as accomplice to the crimes ISIL commits in Europe and Iran - but not in these countries that support them, oddly or not.

That's what I was talking about, stability-wise.

I also believe you are right - this won't be war, just a furthermore isolation of the US by its allies, necessary to defuse such a war.

 

Who told you so?

Frankly, **** you for calling my nation "people with no honor", but who told you we are not grateful for help we had?

 

Under the right circumstances, an old M-60 machine gun is a weapon of mass destruction. Bush and Powell and Company lied, and people died. They lied and their friends and associates became quite wealthy and powerful. An old story in the history of human governments.

 

I do not think it is that you have reading comprehension issues ... more like a strong case of denial and "cant handle the truth"

 

That is because the West and mainly the US helped Saddam Hussein out with obtaining and using those weapons back in the day.

That was never the point. The point the US made was they were making them in all kinds of labs, even in mobile trucks. That and they had them in warheads. The US,.. GWB and co, made this story up out of thin air in order to start a war. And so US got a heck of a lot of blood on their hands. That and them stupid patriotic bunch who just following their leaders.

 

Unlike the conformist liberal thundering herd I think for myself

I see that iraq was a mistake and bush was wrong

but he is not a liar like obama and clinton and certainly not a war criminal

 

There is a common belief that Allied assistance to the Soviets was minor, which if you look at overall numbers, might be true.

But the story is different when you consider that in the earlier parts of the war Western materiel made up something like 30% of Soviet Armament, and plugged a few important holes in production efforts.

You're right in saying that the Soviets did the brunt of the fighting in the period, obviously. No one doubts that. But it's important to recognize that the Soviets were at the breaking point, the Volga was a primary logistical artery that the Germans almost succeeded in cutting. Without lend lease there's good reason to believe that the Soviets would've lost the Volga, and key supplies coming from Iran and oil out of Baku.

 

You're right. I just don't think that avoiding instability is the golden rule of geopolitics.

The United States would have loved to work with moderate Arabs. They were just hard to find, and quick to disappear into ISIS or al-Nusra.

This is my point, in the Arab world, if it's democratic, it probably isn't secular. If it's secular, it probably isn't democratic.

Turks and Iranians are not as fanatical as Arabs, and even they have a hard time keeping democratic Islamism out of power. In Iran they failed, in Turkey they're failing. When they're not failing at this task they're using the military to impose secularism through violence.

And Syria was not democratic.

Why? It failed. It was clearly not an ideology capable of winning the Arab heart. It was a Western parasite that destroyed Muslim pride.

The Arab Spring wasn't some awful destabilizing force. It happened because Arab Nationalism is an unstable structure, it's moral center having hollowed out decades ago.

The US has never given support to ISIL.

 

The US is giving support to ISIL as we type....

 

Not a single person has given a convincing account of American support for ISIS. When they type the word "implicit" understand that to mean "not real."

 

Sorry I don't have a link to it, but a few months ago I watched Tulsi Gabbard shock a young talking head on TV by telling him that indeed we had been covertly supporting ISIS for quite some time.

Recall that they drive trucks from the US and use US weapons. Other sources besides Gabbard make the same claim. With all due respect, I will believe them and disbelieve the pentagon or whatever your sources happen to be.

 

Gabbard said "groups that are working with."

The hysteria of American anti-war activists is a time-honored tradition of our republic.

They attained American materiel from Iraqi soldiers with a severe morale problem and moderate Syrian groups who found that their choice was to join an Islamist faction or to perish.

So yes, our strategy in Syria has been an abject failure. This failure is a deeper statement about how Americans view history and the human condition. Americans tend to believe that all peoples want liberal democratic government systems, and that the only reason they don't have them is because they're oppressed by powerful minorities.

But the truth is different. There never was a chance of a liberal Egypt or a liberal Syria.

And now our strategy is different. Help the Kurds control vast swathes of the country.

 

Still no US jets fired upon by Russia. This saber rattling is an embarrassment to your proud history, Russia.

US jets will never be fired upon by Russia, so long as a Republican is in the Oval Office.

 

Not only has our strategy in Syria been an abject failure, it is also criminal. Our actions in Syria are blatant military aggression, and therefore in violation of international law.

By what authority does the US and Israel have the right to give Syrian territory to the Kurds?

 

nuclear war is not what is at stake anymore.

 

Why so?

 

because of MAD, as for tactical nukes they are only one weapon in a vast arsenal and are the only ones which can feasibly be used without having much of the world declare total war against offending nation or alliance.

 

By the authority derived from the Charter of the United Nations, the right to self-determination recognized thereby.

The Kurds have historical ties with the lands they live on, they lack self-government and are inadequately represented, they should be recognized as a sovereign nation.

 

Well I am certainly sympathetic to the Kurd's need for a home, just as I was sympathetic to the Jew's need for a home. After the western powers broke up the Ottoman Empire after WWI, some groups were left out.

Might you be able to reference that part of the UN Charter that provides such authority to break up countries? A link would be swell. I do understand that to the victor go the spoils, but you're rather vague on the legal authority here. Thanks

 

The right to self-determination, and the obligation to support and defend those struggling to secure this right is derived from UN Resolution 1514 (1960) and the institution of the UN Committee on Decolonization.

 

No they don't... You don't seem knowing no history of the region. Their homeland is ZAGROS of Iran only. They were brought down from Zagros mountains in 16th century by the Ottoman Sultan Yavuz. They have been around Anatolia since then. Before that, eastern parts of Turkiye had Armenians as half of the total population despite Turkish rule. The word Kurdistan was coined by Yavuz for Kurds to embrace the land as their own. It was important Kurds embracing Anatolia because they were (and still are in mass numbers) sunni which by itself was enough reason for Sultan Yavuz to use them as buffer force against the shia Iran on the border which was back then the only essential threat to Turks. Rome, Byzantium, Russia, Pollaks, Europeans were no problem but Persia was, as we've always shared problematic borders with them.

Other than these facts above, with what language the supposed self-determinant Kurds will form "legal grounds" for their own "state authority", while the Kurmanchi Kurds in Turkey can't even understand a word of Sorani Kurds in KRG???? With what ""vocabulary"" they will write the law of their country? Hebrew is maybe richer than the sum of many languages of the world and Kurdish is nothing close to Hebrew in that sense. Did you know schools in Erbil today teach "citizenship course" to Kurdish kids in Arabic (almuatinia) because Arabic is much closer to Sorani than any other languages including Kurmanchi Kurdish, and much richer in vocabulary to describe a simple subject like "citizenship"?

I'm not even touching other fields like "engineering, medicine, politics, complex state bureaucracy, science, literature, etc... How come those kids are expected to have loyalty and respect to their state in the future while it does teach'em in different language other than their native?

Aside from that false "historic tie" bulls.hit, the ugly political realities have been awaiting your utopic land as hungry crocodiles wait for the Zebras crossing the Mara river in Kenya. I know it's not cool but Mesopotamia is where we live, not you, not the hegemoniac killer Americans, or other western ass kissing ignorants... Whatever happens here is not forgotten... Just like we didn't forget how we brought Kurds down from the mountains for obvious political reasons. Our real politics back then were requiring us to take steps like that... Today's a total different story. Our real politics today ENFORCING us to do whatever in our power to prevent any "puppet" establishments along our borders, including but not limited to get 80 million Turks ready to start WW3... Because, this ain't some stupid fckn board game that you roll a dice and move your symbol to some square which happens to have self determination rights for Kurds on... We bombed Sinjar and Karachok where American presence was strong. We'll bomb directly the HQ of American forces the next time if they keep building up on our borders... No joke...

 

I think a community living since the 16th century in a given area may form adequate ties to that land to sustain a legitimate historical claim for self-determination, even if their community originated elsewhere.

Almost everywhere the current population is just the most recent. In many cases previous populations were decimated or assimilated. This is the story of humanity, a more advanced community encroaches in a more primitive people's area, slaughters them, seizes their land, absorbs minor elements of their culture and expands. Then they suffer a similar fate.

Recognition of a right to self-determination is subjective, the authorities will always claim whatever subordinate people are adequately represented, that their historical ties are not that significant. Similarily those arguing for self-determination will highlight the opposite.

One should consider more than just the length of a people's presence, the variety and intensity of their ties are important, I think these should be compared to those of others challenging the claims.