assad and his backers iran and russia commit more war crimes

If US GIs dont want to die, they should stay at home and mind their own business, instead of terrorizing the nations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya...these are true war crimes against humanity and the leaders should be held personally responsible for their atrocities...then because they are too chickensh.t for the leaders the GIs are replaced with mercenaries, called ISIS who will do the dirty work for the US government and destabilize Syria, and try to do the same with Iran...but the USA is merely a puppet for the globalists who want to dominate the planet, and the presidents' title is Puppet in Chief (PIC)...

 

Too much garbage in this post to even begin to waste my time on, but I'll enlighten on one point; when you volunteer for the Armed Services you don't get to "sit home and mind their business" when they feel like. Some maturity would be helpful.

 

You don't know anything about any of those countries, do you? The US couldn't keep Gaddafi in power and Afghanistan has been at war since the mid 1970s. Do you know the meaning of mercenaries?

 

Well, it's only a "war crime" if you lose the war and get caught and then punished by hanging for it.

Otherwise according to Nietzsche and Machiavelli it is merely the will to power.

Political Philosophy follows different rules.

 

I know, it is weird how first BH Obama runs on a pacifist disengagement platform but then like a chameleon changes his colors and goes offensive in Libya and Syria. This is the last thing I ever expected him to do. He must have gotten a hard-on which Michelle could not tame.

 

Reuters is reporting that French intelligence services have evidence of the April 4th sarin gas attack and what that evidence consists of......


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-intelligence-idUSKBN17S0RY

 

Gaddafi didn't have a friend anywhere in the Arab world. (for good reasons) I think Obama and NATO would have held back except Libyan refugees were pouring into Italy.

 

It still strikes me as really strange that BH Obama would change his leopard's spots like that and go tiger. I think power was beginning to corrupt him, just like Lord Acton said.

 

I never thought much of Gaddafi.. he nearly destroyed Libya's oil business and threw out their constitution, so I wasn't surprised. The embassies had all evacuated, all the oil companies had pulled out and the Arab league wanted Gaddafi gone. Risky business. I had an outside hope that they would bring back the Idris constitution.

 

You wrote: "BS..Gaddafi did not have a central bank in Libya, and as such, he was on the gold and silver standard with his currency...the country was rich and giving money to it's poor African neighbours to help them....of course the great satan in North America with it's federal reserve fiat debt laden interest bearing currency can not stand to have a small country trying to be independent, especially when it comes to the money supply, so Gaddafi had to go, and Osama Obama and secretary Clinton saw to it...."

The Central Bank of Libya was established in 1956..

Don't feel bad. lots of know-it- alls are ignorant.. They just repeat and repeat.

 

Then go to Syria and stop it. They're taking volunteers. ISIS could really use your help to topple Assad

 

ISIS came to the party late. The Syrian people wanted Assad gone. The guy is a butcher.. and he'll go down for war crimes.

 

Irrelevant now. ISIS is a major threat to assad and can't wait to see him go.

 

Who cares what isis wants? Because they also hate assad he has to remain in power to placate them? Should US foreign policy be driven by what isis wants?

It is in the US' national security interests to remove assad, and support a regime that is not a satellite of iran. Given that syria is 85% sunni, it would be a perfect, natural bulwark against iran and its interests. It would hamper, if not eliminate, iran's ability to funnel weapons to hezbollah and hamas, and further isolate a rogue, cancer, terror state that is de-stabilizing the mideast.

Unlike iraq, syria is rather homogenous so there is not the same potential for sectarian disaster as what happened in iraq. The minority alawites would have a choice - at least the ones not on trial for war crimes - stay as a minority in syria under proper sunni rule, or move to iran where their former status as iranian vassals might be rewarded.

 

Irrelevant, pointless statement. My help isn't needed, the US military is well-equipped to help finish the job.

 

The US military is BARELY there lol. Just some advisors and SF. Russia is way more involved.

 

You care what ISIS wants because YOU want Assad gone so ISIS can thrive.

 

Why are the two mutually exclusive? You can't eradicate isis while also eliminating/removing assad? Why is that?

 

How are you going to eradicate ISIS. It's an underground faction of recruiters that use social media. They aren't a standing Army (for the most part. They do have some forms of divisions). So removing Assad just gives them more legroom to grow.

 

I think their support comes primarily from 2 sources, one operational/logistical and the other financial:

1) disaffected sunnis marginalized in iraq and syria - both due to anger towards the iranian regime who has used their proxies in the governments to oppress the sunnis, forcing them out of jobs/power in iraq, or bombing them outright in syria. The choices of a syrian sunni civilian are bleak; get bombed by assad/shot by his militias, or turn to a rebel group like isis that might be able to protect you and your family. These civilians are the ones whose homes and mosques are used by isis from which to stay and conduct attacks, some not by choice of course, but who else did they have to turn to given how the rest of the world has either ignored their plight or been stymied from doing anything due to russia's UNSC vetoes/protection of assad?

2) the saudis and other gulf arab states who are financially backing isis and other similar groups like the nusra front.

If assad is deposed and a legitimate, sunni-comprised regime came into power in syria the civilians would no longer be supporting/protecting/accepting of the extremist groups. The US/EU could then apply massive pressure on the saudis and other gulf states to cut off their wealthy from financing these groups.

Without such popular support on the ground in syria, they would be more exposed and have no legitimacy, which would lead to their eradication.

Ultimately, iran's current regime will need to be destroyed to end their interference in iraq and elsewhere, which would lead to the diminishing need and support for isis in iraq and elsewhere the shia are marginalizing/oppressing the sunnis.

 

Removing Assad furthers that vacuum though. Have we learned nothing from the past?

 

A sunni-comprised regime leading syria - which would be considered legitimate on the ground since the country is 85% sunni - would turn on the isis radicals like they did in iraq.

 

Your suggestion is in a perfect world.

 

The Saudis aren't backing ISIS.. That would be suicide for them.