As for the Russians helping Assad? You either really don't know much about Syria or you're intentionally telling us non-truths. Russia sold Assad over a billion dollars in arms in 2012. "Old contracts" said Lavrov, if you can believe that.
Really not sure what you aer getting at here. Are you trying to say that I DON'T think Russia has been helping Assad?
It's the main reason (that, plus Iran, plus Hezbollah)
Who will all get involved by necessity and then we can finally attack them all, hurrah! Just pretty much the outcome we hope for. Fuel "civil" war and let our enemies expend their resources trying to put down our "friends".
The weapons mentioned in Robert's article, the S300 anti-air missiles have NOTHING to do with the civil war
Right. So why are they such a problem for everyone? Oh, yes. They make it dangerous for our aircraft to bomb Syria. They prevent US from acting in Syria the way we believe we are entitled.
I think this will fail and it will become rather obvious soon and Putin will cancel the S300s as it'll certainly draw Israel directly into the war and probably NATO as well.
Let's say I put a fence around my house and get a dog. Is that grounds for war? Would that draw you into a war with me? What about Syria defending itself and trying to deal with its internal problem (howsoever caused) and preventing foreign powers from bombing it at will renders what they have done a hostile act?
I think it's a bone headed move by Russia as the S300s will be easily destroyed and provide a segway into escalation - not to mention humiliation for the Russian air defense industry.
Sure, I don't see why Israel would hold back from another premeditated and unprovoked act of aggression. It IS their style, just as it is the US style. What about the Syrian "civil war", if that is what it is, is any business of ours or Israel's? Assad hasn't attacked any of his neighbours, he hasn't even tried to take back the Sinai. How are the internal struggles of his people anything to do with us except that we may sympathize but by what international law (except the law of the US is the biggest so it does as it want) allows for attacking a country that is NOT attacking anyone else.
We have no right to attack Syria (and call it liberation as usual) and Syria has every right to buy and place weapons that prevent other people from attacking them. I cannot even fathom how you would think they don't. Does not every country have the right to self defense? Or is it only some countries that have a right to exist?
You also completely ignored weapons supplied to him by Iran and the boots on the ground supplied to him by Hezbollah.
Hezbollah have their hands full at the moment fending off Israel who seem to be taking potshots at Lebanon again. If Hezbollah are fighting as the rebels claim (and I guess the ever reliable French too) then they have to worry about their back. Still
As for me being a psychopath, I'm afraid I'm just not charismatic enough for that. You however....
Ah but you have the blood lust.
But that's beside the point. Assad needs to go because that's the way of the dictator.
But why not the House of Saud? Why not the Royal Family of Bahrain? Plenty of repressive regimes that we are friends with who do horrible things to their people. What's different about them? Oh, they cooperate with us - like Syria did when they helped the US to torture CIA prisoners and like Libya did when they helped us to torture CIA prisoners. Oh dear, we really do have no honour. You
It is you who is defending the powerful elite in this case Fluffy.
It is you who are killing the people of Syria. Stop doing that (or advocating for it which allows the killing) and we can get back to criticising Assad and helping the people who want him to lighten up - but we really haven't helped the Syrian people by sending guns and mercenaries. You think Iraq went well? You think Libya went well? It takes decades to recover from our brand of kindness (and we try to make it last longer). The rest of the world, the poor nations of the world and the oppressed nations of the world would all be a lot better off if we stopped trying to help.
And it's you who are supporting this, not me. FluffyMcDeath, supporter of the rich, powerful elite, apologist for the decades old torturous and murderous regime, proponent of never ending injustice and oppression. Pretty sad.
You seem to have come to believe that the gun is the way to peace and equality. Somehow so long as it's Obama killing people it will all work out for the best. You have a very pro-gun attitude for someone who doesn't like the gun. Increasing the amount of death and suffering is how we make the world better? Only if it's a black democrat advocating it, I guess.
The main difference between you and I is that you like to pick and choose when it is right to attack foreign countries that aren't attacking us and I just always say no. Not throwing gasoline on the fire is always my preferred way but you seem to be of the opinion that you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs - when the eggs aren't yours.
So, if there was an armed insurrection against Harper - which side would you be on? Because the Majority of Canadians didn't vote for him, you realize.
