Russian airstrikes in Syria

[Conserative Morality]

I must ask directly: why some people in west thinks, that so called 'Free Syrian Army' is better option than Assad?

Because, if nothing else, the FSA represents the opportunity for change. Assad only offers more of the same. If Assad wins, if he resists these calls for his overthrow, he'll have secured his position on the throne of Syria for at least another few years. Do you think he's going to give that up? That life will become safer for the opposition, that the kind of person who uses chemical weapons and barrel bombs on civilian populations is going to have a revelation and suddenly become a saint?

No. The FSA may not be a sure bet of anything, but a post-war Syria would at least have a relatively clean slate.

During Spanish Civil War, both sides committed atrocities and neither side could be considered 'good', be it carlists or anarchists. Syrian Civil War is same in that.
So, when everyone is bloodthirsty and war criminal already, why it's so bad to support autocratic a**hole, still widely recognized as legit head of state?

Because said autocratic asshole has murdered a good number of his own citizens and faces significant resistance in his country, to the point where people are choosing a fractured and weak big-tent opposition coalition, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, and fucking ISIS over him.

A victory for Assad doesn't mean a return to the status quo. It just means the atrocities will become very, very one-sided.

Seriously, when West have no problem to be allied with Saudi regime, crucifying people for opinions, like, every day...

A lot of us here have a problem with that realpolitik.

[Chossudovsky]

I must ask directly: why some people in west thinks, that so called 'Free Syrian Army' is better option than Assad?

During Spanish Civil War, both sides committed atrocities and neither side could be considered 'good', be it carlists or anarchists. Syrian Civil War is same in that.
So, when everyone is bloodthirsty and war criminal already, why it's so bad to support autocratic a**hole, still widely recognized as legit head of state?

Seriously, when West have no problem to be allied with Saudi regime, crucifying people for opinions, like, every day...

I don't know what the media is like in your country, but in the sort of countries that most people on here come from many of the crimes of US-backed terrorist groups like the FSA such as bombings of civilians and chemical weapon attacks are attributed instead to the Syrian government which in reality has committed nothing that could reasonably be described as a criminal action, although some normal operations of war have obviously led to some civilian casualties.

[Grunberg-Ludbach]

Well, truth be told, I can see where Russia is coming from. If Assad's regime falls, a theocratic, despotic, and absolutely backwards regime will likely find it's way to power. That would not only make the lives of millions of Syrians miserable, but it'd only worsen the refugee crisis. As such, I really have to support Russia here, despite my russophobia. After all, when given the choice between a sociopathic, but competent man, and a group of terrorists, I choose the former, and so does Putin and his cronies.

[Shofercia]

I must ask directly: why some people in west thinks, that so called 'Free Syrian Army' is better option than Assad?

During Spanish Civil War, both sides committed atrocities and neither side could be considered 'good', be it carlists or anarchists. Syrian Civil War is same in that.
So, when everyone is bloodthirsty and war criminal already, why it's so bad to support autocratic a**hole, still widely recognized as legit head of state?

Seriously, when West have no problem to be allied with Saudi regime, crucifying people for opinions, like, every day...

Because they actually think that the FSA can hold Syria. These are the people that thought that Libyans would be getting "democracy" if Khadaffi fell too.

I must ask directly: why some people in west thinks, that so called 'Free Syrian Army' is better option than Assad?

Because, if nothing else, the FSA represents the opportunity for change. Assad only offers more of the same. If Assad wins, if he resists these calls for his overthrow, he'll have secured his position on the throne of Syria for at least another few years. Do you think he's going to give that up? That life will become safer for the opposition, that the kind of person who uses chemical weapons and barrel bombs on civilian populations is going to have a revelation and suddenly become a saint?

No. The FSA may not be a sure bet of anything, but a post-war Syria would at least have a relatively clean slate.

What opportunity? The FSA cannot hold Syria. They've had their chance for over a year now. They failed. Name a single successful FSA offensive carried out without Kurdish support in the past 3 months. FSA taking over Syria will ensure that Syria turns into Libya. In order to provide the opportunity, you actually need to be able to have the resources to do so. If you want to give me an opportunity for a great education, you need to have a staff of well paid and well educated teachers. You cannot just throw out the word "opportunity", "democracy", or whatever, and pretend that it'll magically happen. You don't even know who the fuck is really in charge of the FSA. You don't know how to stop FSA from hemorrhaging weapons to ISIS. And yet, you speak of this great opportunity. This isn't My Little Pony. This is real life.

During Spanish Civil War, both sides committed atrocities and neither side could be considered 'good', be it carlists or anarchists. Syrian Civil War is same in that.
So, when everyone is bloodthirsty and war criminal already, why it's so bad to support autocratic a**hole, still widely recognized as legit head of state?

Because said autocratic asshole has murdered a good number of his own citizens and faces significant resistance in his country, to the point where people are choosing a fractured and opposition, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, and fucking ISIS over him.

A victory for Assad doesn't mean a return to the status quo. It just means the atrocities will become very, very one-sided.

I don't see Russia or Iran committing atrocities on the scale of ISIS. It's because both countries understand that you cannot rule through terror, even if Assad doesn't get that. The Russians and the Iranians are either going to tell Assad to stop the atrocities, or they'll simply remove him. Furthermore, "choosing ISIS"? Do you know what ISIS does to those who don't "choose" them? They don't go around saying, "oh hey, you didn't choose us, let's wait until the next election old chap!" They shoot you. I'd be curious to see how many of those ISIS fighters simply joined because they're forced to, either through fear or hunger.

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

Russia and China were poorly industrialised states until quite late in their forays into socialism. The west has always been very well-industrialised and with eager, educated workforces.

Socialism would probably work much better in the west than it fared in the east.

Actually, it can be said that both Russia's and China's very existence was saved by Reds, literally.

White Russian victory: Russian own tragic Warlord Era and conquest much of it by foreign powers later.

Kuomintang victory: constant widespread corruption, civil wars, rebellions, coups upon coups...and same abuse from foreign powers like in old Qing times.

And you think the murders of millions of Russian and Chinese civilians at the hands of their respective governments was any better than what you think MAY have happened if the non-communist options had prevailed?

In many of the former Soviet Socialist Republics (like Kazakhstan, Russia, etc.) are controlled by former Soviet big-wigs and are not much better off these days because of how screwed up the USSR was and the corruption that has remained as the "left-overs". Back in the USSR days, private property was taken, opposition to the government was silenced, and many civilians were imprisoned in gulags. Estimates of murders at the behest of Soviet officials range from 10-75 million, from all I have read.

In China, an authoritarian regime that silences free speech (when possible) and kills people still exists. They are attempting to provoke US allies like Japan and the Philippines into conflict over some small islands in the South China Sea.

Czar Nicholas II was actually a decent leader in Russia, despite all the issues, and was much less of a threat to world peace than the communist dictators that followed. The Chinese feudal system was not causing regional destabilization and was not letting millions of its people starve through failed farming initiatives and was not causing intentional hardship for the sake of control. Neither pre-communist government was what I would call a perfect example of free-markets and democratic principles, but they were better than what ended up happening under the "reds".

[New Werpland]

Immigration from Russia certainly has increased, mostly among those who are educated.

That article's funny, specifically this part: the number of Russians who emigrated in 2014 will likely surpass the record high of 1999, when the country officially “lost” around 215 thousand people.

The record high of 1999 when roughly 215,000 people emigrated? I'm sorry, but those emigration numbers are way too low to be the record high of the 1990s, then again, with the way that Drunky's (Yeltsin's) Administration kept records, I'm not surprised. Let's look at actual records kept by the European Union. I find that sober administrations are better at keeping record than drunk ones, don't you?

http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/doc ... Russia.pdf

Looks like 676,000 to Europe alone in 1991. I think that 676 is higher than 215, don't you? Because you see, if that claim is destroyed, (which it just was,) then your entire article is crap. It's best not to rely too much on information from Drunky's Administration. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not supposed to find that factoid?

I really don't see how that discredits the article, but thanks, now I can reject almost anything over minor statistical innacuracies.

Or perhaps Shevardnadze was an idiot, and they wanted anyone but Shevardnadze. As for the latter, when there's a giant military build up in the Caucasus, that tends to affect Russia, because if there's military escalation, guess where the refugees go, and where the fighting starts? That's right, Russia. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, (not on Russia's soil,) started by Gorbafool, transitioned into Georgian-Ossetian War, which transitioned into the Georgian-Abkhaz War, which transitioned into the First Chechen War, which was on Russia's soil. Why do you think Russia commits more resources to that region than any other?

Shevardnadze wasn't there to run against Saakashvili for each election. As for the latter, you're not making any sense.

The Russian Peacekeepers, armed with hand held weaponry, provoked the response of Georgian missile launchers and howitzers? Excuse me:

By aiding separatists who were violently forcing Georgians out of South Ossetia, they inevitably ended up pissing off the Georgian government and their mighty military of which they could not hope to fend off. Was it a good idea to invade? Nope. But don't subtract all the background prior to Saakashvili invading South Ossetia and shout "he did it!"

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

I must ask directly: why some people in west thinks, that so called 'Free Syrian Army' is better option than Assad?

During Spanish Civil War, both sides committed atrocities and neither side could be considered 'good', be it carlists or anarchists. Syrian Civil War is same in that.
So, when everyone is bloodthirsty and war criminal already, why it's so bad to support autocratic a**hole, still widely recognized as legit head of state?

Seriously, when West have no problem to be allied with Saudi regime, crucifying people for opinions, like, every day...

Because they actually think that the FSA can hold Syria. These are the people that thought that Libyans would be getting "democracy" if Khadaffi fell too.

Because, if nothing else, the FSA represents the opportunity for change. Assad only offers more of the same. If Assad wins, if he resists these calls for his overthrow, he'll have secured his position on the throne of Syria for at least another few years. Do you think he's going to give that up? That life will become safer for the opposition, that the kind of person who uses chemical weapons and barrel bombs on civilian populations is going to have a revelation and suddenly become a saint?

No. The FSA may not be a sure bet of anything, but a post-war Syria would at least have a relatively clean slate.

What opportunity? The FSA cannot hold Syria. They've had their chance for over a year now. They failed. Name a single successful FSA offensive carried out without Kurdish support in the past 3 months. FSA taking over Syria will ensure that Syria turns into Libya. In order to provide the opportunity, you actually need to be able to have the resources to do so. If you want to give me an opportunity for a great education, you need to have a staff of well paid and well educated teachers. You cannot just throw out the word "opportunity", "democracy", or whatever, and pretend that it'll magically happen. You don't even know who the fuck is really in charge of the FSA. You don't know how to stop FSA from hemorrhaging weapons to ISIS. And yet, you speak of this great opportunity. This isn't My Little Pony. This is real life.

Because said autocratic asshole has murdered a good number of his own citizens and faces significant resistance in his country, to the point where people are choosing a fractured and opposition, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, and fucking ISIS over him.

A victory for Assad doesn't mean a return to the status quo. It just means the atrocities will become very, very one-sided.

I don't see Russia or Iran committing atrocities on the scale of ISIS. It's because both countries understand that you cannot rule through terror, even if Assad doesn't get that. The Russians and the Iranians are either going to tell Assad to stop the atrocities, or they'll simply remove him. Furthermore, "choosing ISIS"? Do you know what ISIS does to those who don't "choose" them? They don't go around saying, "oh hey, you didn't choose us, let's wait until the next election old chap!" They shoot you. I'd be curious to see how many of those ISIS fighters simply joined because they're forced to, either through fear or hunger.

The current Russian government is not that awful to its own citizens; but, Iran is an evil and murderous regime that seeks to exterminate Christians and Jews, just as ISIS does. The Russians have launched 2-3 serious airstrikes against ISIS, but all the SERIOUS Russian and Iranian effort is going towards supporting the ASSad regime in Syria. We should focus on ISIS in Iraq, and then move into Syria after letting all the Syrian troops, rebel terrorists, and ISIS fighters kill each other. There are SIX evil groups in the region who pose threats to security :
Iran
Russia
ASSad's Syrian regime
The rebels fighting ASSad, who are largely composed of Al-Quaeda left-overs, with a VERY SMALL amount of "moderates"(a relative term there)
Taliban left-overs; like the ones who took over Kunduz in Iraq
ISIS

The order we should fight them (or take highly aggressive action against) is:
1.ISIS
2.Iran
3.ASSad
4.The rebels
5.The Taliban
6.Russia

[Chossudovsky]

Because said autocratic asshole has murdered a good number of his own citizens and faces significant resistance in his country, to the point where people are choosing a fractured and opposition, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, and fucking ISIS over him.

A victory for Assad doesn't mean a return to the status quo. It just means the atrocities will become very, very one-sided.

I don't see Russia or Iran committing atrocities on the scale of ISIS. It's because both countries understand that you cannot rule through terror, even if Assad doesn't get that. The Russians and the Iranians are either going to tell Assad to stop the atrocities, or they'll simply remove him. Furthermore, "choosing ISIS"? Do you know what ISIS does to those who don't "choose" them? They don't go around saying, "oh hey, you didn't choose us, let's wait until the next election old chap!" They shoot you. I'd be curious to see how many of those ISIS fighters simply joined because they're forced to, either through fear or hunger.

Which imaginary atrocities do you believe Assad to have committed that he needs to be told to stop?

[Chossudovsky]

That article's funny, specifically this part: the number of Russians who emigrated in 2014 will likely surpass the record high of 1999, when the country officially “lost” around 215 thousand people.

The record high of 1999 when roughly 215,000 people emigrated? I'm sorry, but those emigration numbers are way too low to be the record high of the 1990s, then again, with the way that Drunky's (Yeltsin's) Administration kept records, I'm not surprised. Let's look at actual records kept by the European Union. I find that sober administrations are better at keeping record than drunk ones, don't you?

http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/doc ... Russia.pdf

Looks like 676,000 to Europe alone in 1991. I think that 676 is higher than 215, don't you? Because you see, if that claim is destroyed, (which it just was,) then your entire article is crap. It's best not to rely too much on information from Drunky's Administration. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not supposed to find that factoid?

I really don't see how that discredits the article, but thanks, now I can reject almost anything over minor statistical innacuracies.

Or perhaps Shevardnadze was an idiot, and they wanted anyone but Shevardnadze. As for the latter, when there's a giant military build up in the Caucasus, that tends to affect Russia, because if there's military escalation, guess where the refugees go, and where the fighting starts? That's right, Russia. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, (not on Russia's soil,) started by Gorbafool, transitioned into Georgian-Ossetian War, which transitioned into the Georgian-Abkhaz War, which transitioned into the First Chechen War, which was on Russia's soil. Why do you think Russia commits more resources to that region than any other?

Shevardnadze wasn't there to run against Saakashvili for each election. As for the latter, you're not making any sense.

By the time it came to later elections Saakashvili's combined propaganda machine and street violence had effectively destroyed all opposition, just as he had done to the previous government because it wasn't pro-West.

The Russian Peacekeepers, armed with hand held weaponry, provoked the response of Georgian missile launchers and howitzers? Excuse me:

By aiding separatists who were violently forcing Georgians out of South Ossetia, they inevitably ended up pissing off the Georgian government and their mighty military of which they could not hope to fend off. Was it a good idea to invade? Nope. But don't subtract all the background prior to Saakashvili invading South Ossetia and shout "he did it!"

Those Georgians that were forced out were plotting to take over South Ossetia from the legitimate government and violently ethnically cleanse the region.

[Shofercia]

That article's funny, specifically this part: the number of Russians who emigrated in 2014 will likely surpass the record high of 1999, when the country officially “lost” around 215 thousand people.

The record high of 1999 when roughly 215,000 people emigrated? I'm sorry, but those emigration numbers are way too low to be the record high of the 1990s, then again, with the way that Drunky's (Yeltsin's) Administration kept records, I'm not surprised. Let's look at actual records kept by the European Union. I find that sober administrations are better at keeping record than drunk ones, don't you?

http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/doc ... Russia.pdf

Looks like 676,000 to Europe alone in 1991. I think that 676 is higher than 215, don't you? Because you see, if that claim is destroyed, (which it just was,) then your entire article is crap. It's best not to rely too much on information from Drunky's Administration. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not supposed to find that factoid?

I really don't see how that discredits the article, but thanks, now I can reject almost anything over minor statistical innacuracies.

Minor statistical inaccuracies? A 314.42% error is a minor statistical inaccuracy? That's like predicting that Fiorina will be our next president. You've implied that Russia is facing a brain drain, otherwise why would you say among those who are educated? You then linked an article trying to somehow support that stupid assertion, otherwise why link it? The article then claimed that emigration is rising to record heights. Because if that claim is false, the only other data that remains, is that Russia is going to, allegedly, (not really sure over the accuracy of that article after it made a "minor", 314% statistical error,) lose 90,000 more citizens than Russia lost last year. So let's see here, 90k/145 mil that would be 0.06%. That would actually be a minor statistical error. Considering that over half of Russians have a university degree, among the educated populace that number rises to a whopping, 0.12%. Laughable. Simply laughable.

Or perhaps Shevardnadze was an idiot, and they wanted anyone but Shevardnadze. As for the latter, when there's a giant military build up in the Caucasus, that tends to affect Russia, because if there's military escalation, guess where the refugees go, and where the fighting starts? That's right, Russia. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, (not on Russia's soil,) started by Gorbafool, transitioned into Georgian-Ossetian War, which transitioned into the Georgian-Abkhaz War, which transitioned into the First Chechen War, which was on Russia's soil. Why do you think Russia commits more resources to that region than any other?

Shevardnadze wasn't there to run against Saakashvili for each election. As for the latter, you're not making any sense.

Ever heard of the power of the incumbency? Saakashvili's incumbency election rating is 50%. Laughable. As for the Caucasus, I explained very clearly. If you're still confused, read Richard Sakwa. He's teaches in the UK.

The Russian Peacekeepers, armed with hand held weaponry, provoked the response of Georgian missile launchers and howitzers? Excuse me:

By aiding separatists who were violently forcing Georgians out of South Ossetia, they inevitably ended up pissing off the Georgian government. Was it a good idea to invade? Nope. But don't subtract all the background prior to Saakashvili invading South Ossetia and shout "he did it!"

Violently forcing the Georgians out? So violently that most Georgians stayed, and the ones who left, most of them did so during the early 1990s wars? Would it be ok if I use data from the British Government?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... -Jan07.pdf

Before the war: 98,000 total, 65,000 Ossetians, 28,000 Georgians, 5,000 others. After the war: 45,000 Ossetians, 17,500 Georgians, 7,500 others. Those are British estimates. Not Russian. As a result of the war, more Ossetians were forced out than Georgians. Furthermore, Saakashvili started militarizing in 2004. And continued in 2005. And 2006. And 2007. And 2008. Militarizing heavily. Greatly increasing his defense budget. And what happened in 2004? Georgian special forces failed in South Ossetia. After which, he started to militarize. But for you, that's also Russia's fault.

[Shofercia]

The current Russian government is not that awful to its own citizens; but, Iran is an evil and murderous regime that seeks to exterminate Christians and Jews, just as ISIS does. The Russians have launched 2-3 serious airstrikes against ISIS, but all the SERIOUS Russian and Iranian effort is going towards supporting the ASSad regime in Syria. We should focus on ISIS in Iraq, and then move into Syria after letting all the Syrian troops, rebel terrorists, and ISIS fighters kill each other. There are SIX evil groups in the region who pose threats to security :
Iran
Russia
ASSad's Syrian regime
The rebels fighting ASSad, who are largely composed of Al-Quaeda left-overs, with a VERY SMALL amount of "moderates"(a relative term there)
Taliban left-overs; like the ones who took over Kunduz in Iraq
ISIS

The order we should fight them (or take highly aggressive action against) is:
1.ISIS
2.Iran
3.ASSad
4.The rebels
5.The Taliban
6.Russia

The US is unable to fight Iran or Russia in the Middle East, and since they're protecting Assad, fighting Assad would also lead to defeat, much like the US was unable to fight Vietnam in Vietnam.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

That article's funny, specifically this part: the number of Russians who emigrated in 2014 will likely surpass the record high of 1999, when the country officially “lost” around 215 thousand people.

The record high of 1999 when roughly 215,000 people emigrated? I'm sorry, but those emigration numbers are way too low to be the record high of the 1990s, then again, with the way that Drunky's (Yeltsin's) Administration kept records, I'm not surprised. Let's look at actual records kept by the European Union. I find that sober administrations are better at keeping record than drunk ones, don't you?

http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/doc ... Russia.pdf

Looks like 676,000 to Europe alone in 1991. I think that 676 is higher than 215, don't you? Because you see, if that claim is destroyed, (which it just was,) then your entire article is crap. It's best not to rely too much on information from Drunky's Administration. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not supposed to find that factoid?

Please, someone tell me he's a troll. The arrogance combined with the over the top stupidity just can't be real. It's pretty funny though.

Shofercia ain't no troll man. He's just a Russophiliac mofo. Although Russophilia sometimes collides and fuses with stupidity. SOMETIMES.

[Vistulange]

Please, someone tell me he's a troll. The arrogance combined with the over the top stupidity just can't be real. It's pretty funny though.

Shofercia ain't no troll man. He's just a Russophiliac mofo. Although Russophilia sometimes collides and fuses with stupidity. SOMETIMES.

Shof isn't a troll, he's on the Russian side of things. Quit with the namecalling and just keep providing sources.

Also, the amount of idealism in this thread brings a tear to my eye.

Idealist Westerners thinking their idealism will lead to peace and stability in the Middle-East.

Accept that your naive idealism doesn't work there, but that realpolitik does.

[The balkens]

The current Russian government is not that awful to its own citizens; but, Iran is an evil and murderous regime that seeks to exterminate Christians and Jews, just as ISIS does. The Russians have launched 2-3 serious airstrikes against ISIS, but all the SERIOUS Russian and Iranian effort is going towards supporting the ASSad regime in Syria. We should focus on ISIS in Iraq, and then move into Syria after letting all the Syrian troops, rebel terrorists, and ISIS fighters kill each other. There are SIX evil groups in the region who pose threats to security :
Iran
Russia
ASSad's Syrian regime
The rebels fighting ASSad, who are largely composed of Al-Quaeda left-overs, with a VERY SMALL amount of "moderates"(a relative term there)
Taliban left-overs; like the ones who took over Kunduz in Iraq
ISIS

The order we should fight them (or take highly aggressive action against) is:
1.ISIS
2.Iran
3.ASSad
4.The rebels
5.The Taliban
6.Russia

The US is unable to fight Iran or Russia in the Middle East, and since they're protecting Assad, fighting Assad would also lead to defeat, much like the US was unable to fight Vietnam in Vietnam.

Kek.

[Conserative Morality]

Shof isn't a troll, he's on the Russian side of things. Quit with the namecalling and just keep providing sources.

Also, the amount of idealism in this thread brings a tear to my eye.

Idealist Westerners thinking their idealism will lead to peace and stability in the Middle-East.

Accept that your naive idealism doesn't work there, but that realpolitik does.

Realpolitik led to this mess. The Cold War wasn't fought on idealism, and a quick glance at history will trace most of these problems to Cold War proxy conflicts.

[Shofercia]

The US is unable to fight Iran or Russia in the Middle East, and since they're protecting Assad, fighting Assad would also lead to defeat, much like the US was unable to fight Vietnam in Vietnam.

Kek.

You think the US can successfully invade Iran? TOP LEL Bro. Did you miss this part: much like the US was unable to fight Vietnam in Vietnam. Obviously if Iran decides to attack Turkey or Israel, US would be able to repel the attack, but an invasion of Iran, given the current morale climate, is simply impossible.

[Vistulange]

Shof isn't a troll, he's on the Russian side of things. Quit with the namecalling and just keep providing sources.

Also, the amount of idealism in this thread brings a tear to my eye.

Idealist Westerners thinking their idealism will lead to peace and stability in the Middle-East.

Accept that your naive idealism doesn't work there, but that realpolitik does.

Realpolitik led to this mess. The Cold War wasn't fought on idealism, and a quick glance at history will trace most of these problems to Cold War proxy conflicts.

Realpolitik applied incorrectly led to this mess. The arming of fundamentalist groups against Soviet-backed secular dictatorships led to this mess, CM. Also, do you believe that Western intervention will honestly bring about democracy and human rights to the region? Do you honestly believe that?

[Shofercia]

Shof isn't a troll, he's on the Russian side of things. Quit with the namecalling and just keep providing sources.

Those who engage in name calling are often those who cannot provide sources, or think that Fox News is 100% Fair and Balanced.

Also, the amount of idealism in this thread brings a tear to my eye.

Idealist Westerners thinking their idealism will lead to peace and stability in the Middle-East.

Accept that your naive idealism doesn't work there, but that realpolitik does.

Realpolitik led to this mess. The Cold War wasn't fought on idealism, and a quick glance at history will trace most of these problems to Cold War proxy conflicts.

The Arab Spring was based on idealism. How's that working out?

[The balkens]

Kek.

You think the US can successfully invade Iran? TOP LEL Bro. Did you miss this part: much like the US was unable to fight Vietnam in Vietnam. Obviously if Iran decides to attack Turkey or Israel, US would be able to repel the attack, but an invasion of Iran, given the current morale climate, is simply impossible.

You would note that we can win battles and wars but not hearts and minds.
And why doesnt russia try invading the US? im delighted to see the results.

[Conserative Morality]

Realpolitik applied incorrectly led to this mess. The arming of fundamentalist groups against Soviet-backed secular dictatorships led to this mess, CM.

The Soviets weren't exactly clean when it came to supporting fundamentalists in US-backed dictatorships.

Also, do you believe that Western intervention will honestly bring about democracy and human rights to the region? Do you honestly believe that?

No. But I think that Western intervention can clear the more brutal dictatorships in the area.

We can't build a nation. That's not possible, and it's not desirable. That must come from within. But to connect a country from the rest of the world, to let it breathe even just a little, like Iran*, can bring about change in time.

*Yes, I fully understand that Iran's current situation was caused by the US support of a brutal dictator leading to a fundamentalist backlash.

[Shofercia]

You think the US can successfully invade Iran? TOP LEL Bro. Did you miss this part: much like the US was unable to fight Vietnam in Vietnam. Obviously if Iran decides to attack Turkey or Israel, US would be able to repel the attack, but an invasion of Iran, given the current morale climate, is simply impossible.

You would note that we can win battles and wars but not hearts and minds.
And why doesnt russia try invading the US? im delighted to see the results.

Because neither Russia nor US can successfully invade each other, and that's just one of many, many reasons. Not sure why you'd be delighted to see a nuclear war Balk. I think it'd be bad. Nuclear apocalypse is usually bad. Generally speaking, when there's a big sign saying "if you attack, you will lose", people tend not to attack. Poroshenko seems to be the exception to that rule.

[New Werpland]

Also, do you believe that Western intervention will honestly bring about democracy and human rights to the region? Do you honestly believe that?

If done correctly, yes.

[Shofercia]

Also, do you believe that Western intervention will honestly bring about democracy and human rights to the region? Do you honestly believe that?

If done correctly, yes.

Tell us your plan as to how to do it correctly.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Kek.

You think the US can successfully invade Iran? TOP LEL Bro. Did you miss this part: much like the US was unable to fight Vietnam in Vietnam. Obviously if Iran decides to attack Turkey or Israel, US would be able to repel the attack, but an invasion of Iran, given the current morale climate, is simply impossible.

Colin Powell begs to differ.

[Geilinor]

You think the US can successfully invade Iran? TOP LEL Bro. Did you miss this part: much like the US was unable to fight Vietnam in Vietnam. Obviously if Iran decides to attack Turkey or Israel, US would be able to repel the attack, but an invasion of Iran, given the current morale climate, is simply impossible.

You would note that we can win battles and wars but not hearts and minds.
And why doesnt russia try invading the US? im delighted to see the results.

Russia isn't stupid. Nobody is dumb enough to think they can invade the US and survive.