Thread: Are US and Russia close to war?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Yes, and that's why this is a relevant topic.

Taking a tougher stand against Russian aggression does not necessarily mean WW3 despite the ravings of some Russian propagandists. It's no secret that the Kremlin is doing it's best to portray Clinton as a war monger. The purpose of this well orchestrated campaign is to drum up fear and turn US voters against her in favor of Trump who has deep financial obligations to Russians and has shown a propensity to kneel to Russian interests.

Your defense of your country is admirable unfortunately it is not based on fact,read the links I have posted previously then we go on from there.

The US is in Syria in direct violation of UN resolution 2118 which is mainly about chemical weapons and has this clause;

Recalling the obligation under resolution 1540 (2004) that all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, and their means of delivery

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...s_res_2118.pdf

The US is supporting 'non state actors' who have weapons of mass destruction that have been used against the Syrian army and people.

Independent Investigation Finds That Syrian Rebels Used Chemical Weapons

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article...st-rebels-did/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-u...forces/5363139

The US is the aggressor in Syria in that they are supporting, arming and training a rebel force that includes an off shoot of Alqeada that is attempting to take over the country by force of arms.

Russia is in Syria at the request of the Syrian Government to help defend the country against a rebel force supported by a foreign power.

Whether you like it or not the Assad Government is the government of Syria

Have a read of these and see just how aggressive the US actually is :

https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/...ed-since-1980/

https://curiousmatic.com/bomb-map/

And how many countries has Russia invaded in recent times, well there is their incursion into Afghanistan, some may say their annexation of Crimea was an invasion even though a referendum was held that concluded that the Crimean people wanted to be part of Russia. Then there is Ukraine but only those who like to call Russia's an enemy would call that an invasion.

Originally Posted by birding

The US is the aggressor in Syria in that they are supporting, arming and training a rebel force that includes an off shoot of Alqeada that is attempting to take over the country by force of arms.

This sums it up (as well as violation the UN order you noted above).

The US has already done plenty of damage to the entire region. The US needs to mind its own business.

Originally Posted by Humbert

^Such a lot of propaganda. Russia and Syria are pounding Aleppo with barrel bombs killing hundreds of thousands of children. They are guilty of war crimes for targeting hospitals and aid convoys. Your attempts to portray the US as an aggressor here are ridiculous. Milky you are just an ignorant fool for falling for this nonsense. Birding is a Russian apologist and bullshit peddler.

1. I never stated that Russia and Syria were not using barrel bombs.

2. I never stated it was a good thing.


My comment was about the US. The US is funding and arming al Al-Qaeda ally and off-shoot. Foolish.

3. Yes, children have died at it's terrible. I am not sure that it has been "hundreds of thousands" b/c of barrel bombs.

The US contines policies first put in place by Woodrow Wilson. “The world must be made safe for democracy.” This policy has and remains the reason for intervention and subsequent entanglements around the world. A policy which is a profound departure from the Founders’ emphasis on prudence in the application of just principles. Long past time this policy be trashed and replaced with one where military intervention is only used when there is a direct threat to US citizens. With the possible exception of WW2 (specifically against Japan) none of the military actions the US has been involved in over the last 100 years meet the criteria.

Remaking the World: Progressivism and American Foreign Policy

By Christopher Burkett

"Throughout the 20th century, Americans struggled to define the fundamental purpose of U.S. foreign policy: whether America should intervene abroad to promote the welfare of others or to secure the lives and liberty of American citizens. This struggle is one of the most enduring legacies of the Progressive revolution in American politics. Christopher Burkett contrasts the principles of Progressive foreign policy with those of the Founding and looks at three early examples of their application: the Spanish– American War and its aftermath, Theodore Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter World War I in 1917. He shows how the Progressives’ idealistic foreign policy marked a profound departure from the Founders’ emphasis on prudence in the application of just principles."

Progressivism and American Foreign Policy

^^over 450,000 civilians have been killed in Aleppo. A great many of them children. Government forces deliberately target hospitals and aid convoys. The US and coalition forces are targeting ISIS in northern Syria.

Originally Posted by Norton

The US contines policies first put in place by Woodrow Wilson. “The world must be made safe for democracy.” This policy has and remains the reason for intervention and subsequent entanglements around the world. A policy which is a profound departure from the Founders’ emphasis on prudence in the application of just principles. Long past time this policy be trashed and replaced with one where military intervention is only used when needed when there is a direct threat to US citizens. With the possible exception of WW2 (specifically against Japan) none of the military actions the US has been involved in over the last 100 years meet the criteria.

["B]Remaking the World: Progressivism and American Foreign Policy[/B]
By Christopher Burkett

"Throughout the 20th century, Americans struggled to define the fundamental purpose of U.S. foreign policy: whether America should intervene abroad to promote the welfare of others or to secure the lives and liberty of American citizens. This struggle is one of the most enduring legacies of the Progressive revolution in American politics. Christopher Burkett contrasts the principles of Progressive foreign policy with those of the Founding and looks at three early examples of their application: the Spanish– American War and its aftermath, Theodore Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter World War I in 1917. He shows how the Progressives’ idealistic foreign policy marked a profound departure from the Founders’ emphasis on prudence in the application of just principles."

Progressivism and American Foreign Policy

Has the US followed this policy? No, for the most part.

Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Middle East dictatorships, and on and on.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Has the US followed this policy? No, for the most part.

Selectively they have.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Has the US followed this policy? No, for the most part.

Selectively they have.

And it's been very selective.

It's about "interests," not about "democracy" for the most part.

I should also add Vietnam in 1954. We know what happened.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

It's about "interests," not about "democracy" for the most part.

And when Russia intervenes what is it about?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

It's about "interests," not about "democracy" for the most part.

And when Russia intervenes what is it about?

The same --> Russia's interests.

We know why.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Birding is a Russian apologist and bullshit peddler.

Exactly!

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Humbert

Birding is a Russian apologist and bullshit peddler.

Exactly!

you are both stupid ignorant Americans, no wonder GW Bush got elected, and so almost did Trump

Originally Posted by Humbert

over 450,000 civilians have been killed in Aleppo.

Oh, so in a city of some two million people (of which 250-300k reside in the rebel held areas), near enough 25% of the population have died in this rebellion? Rhubarb.

It is hard to take you seriously sometimes, rube.

^ Well regardless the Russians are in the process of turning eastern Aleppo into glass and it is all over the news and web. Just ten minutes ago...

Scores dead after Aleppo pounded in aerial onslaught - News from Al Jazeera

^Yeah, I made a mistake. Meant Syria. I would expect someone like buttplug to pounce on it but I thought Sabang had more class. Another illusion bites the dust.

Madness.
A sad state.

And most buy into it easily - lock, stock, and barrel.

Originally Posted by Humbert

^Yeah, I made a mistake. Meant Syria. I would expect someone like buttplug to pounce on it but I thought Sabang had more class. Another illusion bites the dust.

I am used to your American ignorance now, so don't expect much

Sabang is just learning how "American" you are

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Well regardless the Russians are in the process of turning eastern Aleppo into glass and it is all over the news and web. Just ten minutes ago...

Scores dead after Aleppo pounded in aerial onslaught - News from Al Jazeera

gee, where was the outrage when the American or the Brits or the French were bombing civilians,

we lost the war already, Putin is cleaning up after our mess, and yes we don't like it because it show how stupid western policies have been in the last few years

we made that, not the Russians. Time to take responsibility for it, something you Americans never got.

Originally Posted by Humbert

^Such a lot of propaganda. Russia and Syria are pounding Aleppo with barrel bombs killing hundreds of thousands of children. They are guilty of war crimes for targeting hospitals and aid convoys. Your attempts to portray the US as an aggressor here are ridiculous. Milky you are just an ignorant fool for falling for this nonsense. Birding is a Russian apologist and bullshit peddler.

Strange about these so called "Barrel Bombs" when the US makes and sells them to their 'Allies" they are called "Cluster Munitions or Cluster Bombs" and its OK for these "Allies to use them :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8d2_story.html

?Ticking time bomb for civilians?: Banned U.S.-made cluster bomb ?minefields? killing children in Yemen - Salon.com

The Brits also make and sell "Barrel Bombs":

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ilians-inquiry

But thats OK the US has stopped making them now :

Last Remaining U.S. Maker of Cluster Bombs Stops Production | Foreign Policy

But they still have good stockpiles and the house has approved their sale to the Saudis :

House OKs Ongoing Cluster Bomb Sales to Saudi Arabia, Saying a Ban Would 'Stigmatize' the Weapons - ABC News

Giving the reason for ongoing sales that to ban them would "Stigmatize the Weapons".
So there you go Humbert they have not been "Stigmatized" so its OK to use them unless of course its Russia using them.

They have also been used in Afghanistan :

https://www.hrw.org/report/2002/12/1...es-afghanistan

And Libya :

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/03/14/...uster-bomb-use

Cant blame that on the Russians.

The US in the interest of safety have a policy that cluster bombs must explode 99% of the time upon deployment, see on this link :

How US Cluster Bombs Banned by Most Countries Ended Up in Yemen | Mother Jones

A Snip :

A "safer" cluster bomb?After the 2008 treaty, the United States came up with a policy that would end its use and export of cluster munitions by 2018—with the exception of those that blow up 99 percent of the time when they're deployed. In lab settings, Textron's CBU-105s perform to that standard, and they were hailed as a step forward for making safer cluster munitions. But since they were first used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, activists have reportedfinding more duds than allowed under the one-percent failure rate rule


The only way cluster bombs are safe is if they are never used by anyone.

I note Humbug that you have never, that I have seen, posted a link to your bias opinion instead continuing to regurgitate US propaganda.

I on the other hand make a point of posting links as proof of what I write.

I note as of todays news that the US has found an excuse to fire missiles into Yemen

Navy launches Tomahawk missiles at rebel sites in Yemen after attacks on U.S. ships

They claim that Missiles smuggled into Yemen from Iran were used to attack their ships.

So how would Iran get hold of missiles to give to Yemen ? Have you heard of the Iran Contra Scandal or the missiles for hostages : If not look them up (I am not going to do it for you) and you will see where Iran could have got these weapons.

Birding is taking some people's asses to school.

And bsnub, you're obviously reading the US mainstream media, and you even admit it.

Who cares who makes the barrel bombs. It is Assad that is using them on his own people. Next you'll blame the chemical suppliers to the arms makers, then you'll blame the mines where the natural compounds are sourced.
And why should I post links. It is common knowledge that Assad is responsible for most of the killing of civilians in Syria. It's only Russian ass kissers that deny this.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Next you'll blame the chemical suppliers to the arms makers, then you'll blame the mines where the natural compounds are sourced.

spoken like a true world crime apologist

Originally Posted by Humbert

It is common knowledge that Assad is responsible for most of the killing of civilians in Syria. It's only Russian ass kissers that deny this.

right because you are on the ground there yourself to verify all those facts

you starting to make Trump supporters look good with silly statements like these

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by Humbert

Next you'll blame the chemical suppliers to the arms makers, then you'll blame the mines where the natural compounds are sourced.

spoken like a true world crime apologist

Get real you dim poodle.

World's largest arms exporters

2001–12 Rank

Supplier

1 United States 5908
2 Russia 5896
3 China 850
4 France 1297