Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31
    A humble prophet Dresta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Medina
    Posts
    9,848

    Default Re: Angela Merkel sinks to a new low

    More gems from that article:

    If Mr Assad and Russia succeed in turning the war into a choice between the regime and the worst jihadists, it would be a disaster. Most Syrians are Sunni and many of them will never be reconciled to Mr Assad. If mainstream groups are crushed, they will be driven either into Europe or into the arms of the jihadists. Non-jihadist Sunnis therefore need support.

    The tragedy of Mr Obama’s feebleness is that actions that were once feasible—establishing a no-fly zone or creating safe areas—now carry the risk of a clash with Russia. Undeclared humanitarian zones may still be possible. Mr Obama’s best response would be to take his own policy seriously: create a moderate force to push back the caliphate in eastern Syria. This would involve Sunni states; it would give moderate rebels a hinterland from which to establish the nucleus of an alternative government under existing American air cover; and it would call Russia’s bluff about fighting the jihadists.

    The West will have to press Russia, starting with the renewal of EU sanctions this summer. Mr Putin has made canny use of force. The West’s response need not be limited to Syria.


    Utterly delusional or wholly disingenuous. The two major forces fighting Assad are ISIS and Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda), and the supposedly moderate FSA is a strong ally of the latter. The only moderates still fighting in this war are those who fight for the Syrian army, who are being butchered and beheaded by groups aided by NATO powers. They not only kill Syrian army members, they send pictures of their severed heads to their parents and relatives; these are the sorts of people the shills at the Economist are empowering, whether they realise it or not. 'Non-Jihadist Sunnis' are fighting predominantly for the Syrian army, which is majority Sunni.

    But yeah, the final line is a fine summation of the dogma of these liberal utopianists: make perpetual war to secure perpetual peace; don't just take on Russia in Syria, stir up more unrest elsewhere! (like in Ukraine, perhaps, which is something they already did, and with more needless bloodshed and war resulting).

    edit: many of those fighting for Al-Nusra and similar groups are Syrians who took part in the insurgency against US forces in Iraq. This shit is like 1984.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,351

    Default Re: Angela Merkel sinks to a new low

    Turkey and the Saudis are our true enemies. Get back to me when we start going after them. Those are pretty much the only two US wars I would support, other than defending ourselves from a foreign invasion, or delivering "freedom" to North Korea.

  3. #33
       
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,109

    Default Re: Angela Merkel sinks to a new low

    Quote Originally Posted by Dresta
    Sorry, but the Economist is wholly subject to the neocon/globalist/corporate/regime change agenda, and I wouldn't take anything it has to say about geopolitics remotely seriously. Their senior editor, Edward Lucas, is brazenly pro-NATO and an unwavering apologist for American imperialism, so much so that he went as far as to say that Edward Snowden was a Russian spy (get it: everything is a dirty Russian plot, the West is always good, and the East is always bad).

    The Economist was also (unsurprisingly) a cheerleader for the Libyan intervention, and also for American arming of imaginary "moderates" in Syria and even direct intervention and personal removal of Assad. Here is there latest:

    http://www.economist.com/news/leader...or-worse-peril

    subheading:




    Sound at all familiar? Because to me it sounds just like the Republican warmongers in Congress. Not to mention its mind-numbing ignorance: for instance, their belief that rebels in Syria haven't already been provided with anti-aircraft weaponry (anyone who has followed the war knows that a number of Syrian jets have been shot down, and that many rebel factions have been supplied with MANPADS--capable of shooting down civilian airliners btw, and that these weapons are openly made for sale in Libya, due to our idiotic intervention in that country).

    Also, the idea that Putin should need to divide Erdogan from his "NATO allies" (as the article asserts) is patently ludicrous considering the heaps of evidence that the Turks have been aiding the Islamic State, and blackmailing its "allies" regarding the migrant crisis. Ties should long have been cut with that tyrant if western powers were in any way consistent in their condemnations of foreign despots (Erdogan and Saudis = ok, Putin and Assad=evil incarnate). Give me a break: a child should be able to see through such sophistry.
    aha. well, i can't pretend that those theatres are ones that i'm particularly knowledgeable about. china and japan are moreso my specialties.

    anyway, one of the first things that popped out to me (re: linked article) was putin's hand in matters. that seems entirely consistent with everything i know so far about the SOP of that mofo.

    there's probably a good online discussion on the germany - russia rift. if possible i'll take a look and compare it to your notes on the economist. that could be interesting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •