Civil War in Syria, what do you think?

[Wamitoria]

Obama funded the Contras? Really?

I stated that if a nation or person does something in the past it is most likely to reoccur again. So if the US funded the Contras then i assume the US will still fund pro-rebel groups or dictators or the like. Assad happens to be one of the dictators that did not support the US

Therefore, Belgium is likely to attempt genocide of black people and Russia is likely to invade Turkey for teh lulz.

[The UK in Exile]

....any more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID

NORAID was never an official government agency.

yes. because thats totally a distinction the US makes. when the taliban pointed out that they weren't with Osama the US was very reasonable about the whole thing. since Osama wasn't OFFICALLY part of the afghan government the US decided to leave afghanistan alone and that Osama was out of their reach.

[Demphor]

Groundbreaking suggestion. If only we'd thought to talk peacefully to the Germans in WW2, everything could have turned out fine.

What the fuck is wrong with you? If there were peace talks in ww2 there would still be a nazi europe and genocide would be occurring, it WOULD NOT have turned out fine.

[Northern Bavungria]

I stated that if a nation or person does something in the past it is most likely to reoccur again. So if the US funded the Contras then i assume the US will still fund pro-rebel groups or dictators or the like. Assad happens to be one of the dictators that did not support the US

Can you name any terrorist groups in modern times that are currently being funded by the United States?

Once again as i stated you could consider Israel as a terrorist. Of course it is a nation so technically it is not a group. Also as stated before i am fairly certain that America is funding the Syrian rebels which have been accused of the same crimes as Assad's regime. (The situation down there is not looking nice) Also the Libyan rebels could be considered terrorists. They imprisoned black prisoners after the war because a lot of black mercenaries were hired by Gaddafi.

The point i am trying to make is that just because a country sponsors terrorism (which is a very hard subject because there is a thin line between terrorist and freedom fighter) does not mean it is a bad country. Tons of awesome countries do it.

[Allrule]

Groundbreaking suggestion. If only we'd thought to talk peacefully to the Germans in WW2, everything could have turned out fine.

What the fuck is wrong with you? If there were peace talks in ww2 there would still be a nazi europe and genocide would be occurring, it WOULD NOT have turned out fine.

Hint hint, he was being sarcastic, i.e. NOT SERIOUS.

[Demphor]

What the fuck is wrong with you? If there were peace talks in ww2 there would still be a nazi europe and genocide would be occurring, it WOULD NOT have turned out fine.

Hint hint, he was being sarcastic, i.e. NOT SERIOUS.

Well I can certainly tell the difference through the computer screen

[The UK in Exile]

Hint hint, he was being sarcastic, i.e. NOT SERIOUS.

Well I can certainly tell the difference through the computer screen

heres a good rule of thumb, if it seems like such a bad idea that you feel compelled to ask what the fuck is wrong with someone, give them a pass.

[Ridicularia]

Dude, we like, created the ISI.

The ISI formed in 1948, long before any proxy conflict involving Pakistan and India began.

I mean metaphorically. We funded them during the Afghan conflict, and helped them grow to prominence.

We funded the Taliban

The Mujaheddin, you mean. Most of the guys we funded went on to become the Northern Alliance. Saudi and Pakistani funded Mujaheddin went on to join the Taliban in much larger numbers.

Source? A lot of our funding was to Pakistan. And we didn't exactly support Massood during the Civil War.

We still do arms deals with Pakistan.

Note the source I just provided.

Right, right. Then we work very closely with them. Militarily. That's pretty supportive.

[Northern Bavungria]

I stated that if a nation or person does something in the past it is most likely to reoccur again. So if the US funded the Contras then i assume the US will still fund pro-rebel groups or dictators or the like. Assad happens to be one of the dictators that did not support the US

Therefore, Belgium is likely to attempt genocide of black people and Russia is likely to invade Turkey for teh lulz.

I like your point. However i am not saying that it will try to do the exact same thing. That is ridiculous. Times change as well as priorities. So i am a saying if a country went to war in the past I do not doubt for a second that it will join another war in the future with a different enemy. America funded anti-communist terrorists why would they not fund terrorists in the future to protect america's interests or to attack the new american enemy ?

[Ridicularia]

Can you name any terrorist groups in modern times that are currently being funded by the United States?

Again, here's one.
We still do weird shit all over the world.

[Central congo]

well intervention would just make it a even bigger bloodbath and would send that region up in flames

[Wamitoria]

Hint hint, he was being sarcastic, i.e. NOT SERIOUS.

Well I can certainly tell the difference through the computer screen

Just assume that anything Allrule posts that includes the words "zionist" and "conspiracy" is intended to be a parody.

[Wamitoria]

well intervention would just make it a even bigger bloodbath and would send that region up in flames

It really couldn't get a lot more bloodier at this point. I have a feeling that we're going to find out a lot of bad things about Assad after his government falls.

[Northern Bavungria]

well intervention would just make it a even bigger bloodbath and would send that region up in flames

It really couldn't get a lot more bloodier at this point. I have a feeling that we're going to find out a lot of bad things about Assad after his government falls.

That is what we thought when we invaded iraq. Now it's a fail democracy where iraqis kill iraqis to try to kick out the american military.

[Wamitoria]

It really couldn't get a lot more bloodier at this point. I have a feeling that we're going to find out a lot of bad things about Assad after his government falls.

That is what we thought when we invaded iraq. Now it's a fail democracy where iraqis kill iraqis to try to kick out the american military.

Iraq didn't have a massive civil uprising against the government going on, and Saddam seems to be much more ineffectual than Assad. I've read Saddam's biography. He was a complete coward who would do anything to save his own ass. Assad seems to be much more shrewd.

[Aryavartha]

The Mujaheddin, you mean. Most of the guys we funded went on to become the Northern Alliance. Saudi and Pakistani funded Mujaheddin went on to join the Taliban in much larger numbers

...
and
..

Source? A lot of our funding was to Pakistan. And we didn't exactly support Massood during the Civil War.

The funding mostly worked liked this. US gave money to Pak, KSA matched it. Pak was adamant that they would be the sole distributor of this money to Afghan Mujahideen. This way, they controlled influence and played favorites (ex, they pumped up Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and shunned Massoud). Despite this, both US and KSA had their own factions that they aided out of Pak channels. But most of the money flowed through ISI hands.

Please read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, where he has meticulously detailed these.

During the taliban takeover, US did aid the NA - not to the full extent of what the NA wanted or even some of the US officials wanted. India did too. The hospital where Massoud was taken to after the explosion was an Indian run hospital staffed with Indian doctors.

[Wamitoria]

The Mujaheddin, you mean. Most of the guys we funded went on to become the Northern Alliance. Saudi and Pakistani funded Mujaheddin went on to join the Taliban in much larger numbers.

Source?

Couldn't find one, so disregard my statement. It's based on anecdotal comments by a former history teacher of mine.

However, Pakistan was pretty much solely responsible for maintaining the Taliban during the early phases of the Afghan Civil War.

[The Dalekss]

aren't they done killing each other yet ?

[Ridicularia]

The funding mostly worked liked this. US gave money to Pak, KSA matched it. Pak was adamant that they would be the sole distributor of this money to Afghan Mujahideen. This way, they controlled influence and played favorites (ex, they pumped up Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and shunned Massoud). Despite this, both US and KSA had their own factions that they aided out of Pak channels. But most of the money flowed through ISI hands.

Please read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, where he has meticulously detailed these.

During the taliban takeover, US did aid the NA - not to the full extent of what the NA wanted or even some of the US officials wanted. India did too. The hospital where Massoud was taken to after the explosion was an Indian run hospital staffed with Indian doctors.

Yeah dude. We should have supported Massood with India while we had the chance. The CIA loved him.

Anyway, back on topic. Ahhh, Syrian interventionism, bring the troops home, etc.

Couldn't find one, so disregard my statement. It's based on anecdotal comments by a former history teacher of mine.

However, Pakistan was pretty much solely responsible for maintaining the Taliban during the early phases of the Afghan Civil War.

That's true. Like Aryavartha said, though, it used a lot of US dollars to do it.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The ICJ cannot try him until Assad is actually captured: we cannot expect that he will just hand himself in.

No, but there's a possibility that Assad can be forced out by a newly elected government; I doubt that there are too many people who are happy with how he handled the initial protests, especially amongst the Alawite and Sunni Communities.

The problem is that without intervention, he would simply go into hiding. I doubt that he would accept responsibility for it, and more likely, he would instead claim that the rebels did it. However, the evidence against Assad is becoming more overt.

[Kvatchdom]

I can support neither sides. Both are bloodthirsty idiots.

[Allrule]

I can support neither sides. Both are bloodthirsty idiots.

Oh that's original.

[Shofercia]

Yes, that usually happens in a Civil War. I also heard the Gettysburg was a very big clash. Quite intense too.

Gettysburg did not happen in Washington DC, which would have been a very bad sign for the Union. Eventually there was a quite intense clash in Richmond-- that was very bad news for the Confederacy. Assad fighting for his own capital is a sign that we are near the end.

Yeah, about Richmond being a Confederate failure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Richmond

I'm just kidding, I know you meant the one in Virginia

Also, fighting for your own capital doesn't mean that you're defeated. The Georgians captured a substantial portion of Tskhinval(i) and were routed within twenty-four hours.

That´s exactly what we did in Vietnam, and look where that got us.

Except we eventually sent in ground troops to Vietnam, which we never did in Libya, and that's not what Northumrbia is arguing anyway. But good job with the strawman and poor Vietnam comparison.

You on the other hand NEVER use strawmen in your attempts at sarcasm

And I said that was wrong. Look, if you can remove Assad and keep Syria stable - show that you can do it first, and then go for it! That's why I suggested elections.

You don't think it's relevant that Syria isn't stable right now anyway, so foreign support for a regime change won't necessarily mix things up any more than they are?

And good luck holding elections with, er, Assad refusing to hold elections.

Assad should be forced to hold elections! Again, I'm not giving him a choice. And I think that foreign intervention will only fuck things up. Case in point: the Angolan Civil War.

Well, what facts do point towards future necessity of US involvement?

torture. no rule of law. rule of warlords. ethnic cleansing.

stuff like that. why be ruled by gaddafi when you can be ruled by thousands of gaddafi's.

Clearly Jesse Jackson is on Assad's payroll, deliberately trying to prevent intervention in Syria by exposing the anti-Zionist propaganda in Libya! What, don't like that Allrule? Cause that's exactly what you do to the side that's debating against you.

Oh god not another war. Can we please spend money on ourselves? Please?

Stop supporting mass murder, and imposing onto the consciousness of others! /sarcasm

Um... which designated terrorist organizations are we sponsoring?

none. since the US your government decides who it designates and who it sponsors.

want to sponsor them? just remove them from the list.

Like the KLA: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BIS111A.html

As early as 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and funds supplied from Islamic countries and individuals, including Osama bin Laden. This did not stop the United States from arming and training KLA members in Albania and in the summer of 1998 sending them back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and intimidate hesitant Kosovo Albanians.

And if you doubt the source: James Bissett is a former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, 1990-1992.

[FimFiction]

Why is this anything to do with us?
Don't we have other things to spend money on?

[Tmutarakhan]

Also, fighting for your own capital doesn't mean that you're defeated.

But it's not a good sign.

Assad should be forced to hold elections! Again, I'm not giving him a choice.

Uh... you and what army are not going him a choice?