Putin Nominated For Noble Peace Prize

There was no civil war in Iraq when we removed Saddam.

 

There was a pretty messy insurgency though.

 

Care to support that ?

Where's the evidence ?


..

 

Every Iraqi that was killed by the glorious US military was an "insurgent" and worthy of death.

Killing civilians has been in the forefront of US military policy since Lincoln when General Sherman pronounced it as:

"extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" ....

Sherman elsewhere declared "We are not fighting against enemy armies, but against an enemy people, both young and old, rich and poor, and they must feel the iron hand of war in the same way as organized armies."

Around 1902 in another attempt to "clean" for "world order"

US General Jacob H. Smith tells the commanding officer of the Marines assigned to clean up the island of Samar, Philippines:

"I want no prisoners.

I wish you to kill and burn;

the more you kill and burn the better it will please me."

He orders that the entire island of Samar be converted into a "howling wilderness." He specifically orders that all males over the age of ten are to be shot. Step one is to burn the town of Balangiga to the ground.


This is what the US has done to the Indians, China, Germany, Japan, Katanga, Vietnam, Panama, Fallujah, Libya, Yugoslavia, Korea, Syria and many other places, yes?

 

Exactly - when Saddam was in power there was no civil war. There is now...

 

No. And we havent even fired a shot in Syria. Why would you blame the US?

 

My point was that a civil war and an insurgency are basically the same thing past a certain point.

You could describe what's happening in Syria in similar terms.

Also, I was assuming that dixon was referring to Iraq after Saddam was removed, not before.

Granted, you could describe the tensions between the Baathists and the Kurds and Shiites as having elements of an insurgency under Saddam.

Saddam wasn't gassing Kurds just for the hell of it. He did it to try and keep the Kurdish areas under his control. The number of people he killed in the process didn't matter to him. It didn't even matter to us until he stopped being our pawn.

 

The "gay propaganda" law is atrocious... As for Magnitsky, I'm not sure of any Putin fingerprints on him. And he is overstaying his welcome as leader.

Don't get me wrong; Russia is not a human rights sanctuary by any means. It's not as bad as many other countries.. USA, if they are behind on domestic abuses, they are rapidly catching up.

The main point is, the most major countries in the world need work on domestic policy, and are moving in the wrong direction. Russia, China, the Middle East, USA etc.

However, external policy is a different story.

USA are the most belligerent since WW2 and they are bullying, bombarding, spying on and destabilizing the world. Who else kidnaps and indefinitely detains and tortures foreign nationals? Who else bullies both diplomats and world leaders? Russia are more peaceful. They fight virtually no foreign war. They fought their fair bit of civil war though, but that's not so much global antagonism. Otherwise all I can think of was a brief operation in support of South Osetia as independent from Georgia. I think that was a few years ago.

 

The US sent in assassins to kill police, military and protestors to create the image of a civil war.
The US aids and abets the terrorists attacking the Syrians, especially the Christian Syrians.

If the USA told the Turks, Israelis, Saudis, Qataris and Kuwiatis to stop their war on Syria, it would end promptly or those countries would be hit.

Instead, the USA supports those countries in their war on Syria.

The USA endorsed the Israeli bombing raids on Syria.

The USA also fired 2 missiles at Syria which the Russians shot down.

 

What nonsense. You dwell in an alternate reality.,

 

Russia still manipulates many of its former Soviet Republics. It also plays a part in countries like Syria. I agree that the scope of our foreign meddling is greater than theirs, however.

 

You bet they do.

Plus, USA and Russia are the two biggest arms dealers in the world. They are neck-and-neck, seemingly competing to see who can sell the most weapons. I believe the USA is only marginally ahead at this time. But the USA do sell weapons to some shady people. Then again so do Russia.

They are trying some foreign meddling with their English-speaking RT propaganda network as well..

As for the meddling in Syria, no doubt USA and Russia both have vested interests there. For Russia's part, it is good, peaceful meddling. It is the USA that is on the wrong side of this one. It just so happens to be that a peaceful stable country there, that doesn't get taken over by terrorists and plunged into uncertain future like so many other nearby countries have been, is really in Russia's interests. And that's because of Russian resource routes.

 

Supplying the weapons to slaughter his own people. Not very peaceful.

 

While I wouldn't consider it "peaceful" on the part of Russia, I'd agree that we're on the wrong side in this one.

 

You're right... It's concerning because Assad is being way too heavy handed with collateral damage and is way out of line in denial of humanitarian aid. Both USA and Russia have blood on their hands as they support either side...

I'll have to retract my use of the word "peaceful" as that was wrong.

Let me put it like this instead. If secular dictatorship can remain in Syria, with terrorists quashed, and the war over, that could be a peaceful outcome. Otherwise, instability and violence like in Libya would ensue and remain.

- - - Updated - - -

I maybe could have said "stability-promoting" or something like that.