The US versus the ICC

[Phaeton80]

On 15-9-2018 at 7:41 PM, South Alabam said:

 

I have never found a single person in real life that supported the Iraq war. Bush and Cheney wanted that war, and when America said "no" they turned to the world. When the world said "no," they went anyway with just a few nations with them. No matter who is voted in the war machine keeps rolling. Evidently those behind the scenes have gotten to Trump also.

We see that when Syria got close to wrapping up their civil war the U.S warned them not to use chemical weapons or they would get a much stronger response. Then Syria presented to the UN rebel plans to stage a false flag chemical attack blaming Syria. Either they still want a "regime" change, or the war machine must keep rolling, or both.

All regime changes do, as we have seen is create death and misery for untold millions and destabilize the entire region making the world a much more dangerous place.

So not all Americans are ignorant or indifferent to human suffering caused by war, especially ones we did not want.

It is just a you posted, we vote them in trying to solicit a peaceful change to the world, and all we get is continuing war in exchange.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_Pages

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Not hard to see why Bush wanted those pages redacted. So he could start a war even though nothing pointed to Iraq.

Think it would be wise to assess the Israeli connection and not stare yourself blind on SA. This goes for the ME as well as the September event that kicked off the socalled 'War on Terror'.

From where Im standing, Israel seems to be the key to, one of the main sources of the problem you (and I) describe here.

[AnchorSteam]

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

Not really. Im arguing for the American national to wise the f* up and demand their government to cease and dissist in its incessant employment of illegal wars of agression to further its geo political goals under te guise of humanitarianism, 'fighting terror', while in fact doing the exact opposite. This is not only detrimental to the native population of the US's target nation(s), but the Western and American civilian as well on the long run.

Fine, but what is an "illegal" war?

Did the Russian Duma issue a formal declaration of war in regards to Syria?

Did Iran?

Can't anyone in the whole Middle East have one of their little wars without trying to drag everyone else into it?

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

Underestimating the implications of the present scenario would be one of the gravest mistakes to make. 

Such as what, exactly?

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

Lastly, to 'end something', one would logically adress the source. One of the main sources of the recent 'Muslim extremist bloom', including but not limited to Syria, is your nation, your government.. As well as your 'close allies', symbiots, the ME 'Islands of Civilization' Saudi Arabia and Israel.

So, we just have to sit back and let everyone attack us and do nothing about it? Be helpless and compliant like a battered wife.... like Europeans. I'm sure you and your buddies would love that, but guess again. 

[aztek]

Just now, AnchorSteam said:

.. like Europeans. I'm sure you and your buddies would love that, but guess again. 

i can't help but think Europe now is pre Islamic revolution iran. when will europe's 1979 come? pretty soon i would guess.

[AnchorSteam]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

i can't help but think Europe now is pre Islamic revolution iran. when will europe's 1979 come? pretty soon i would guess.

Keep in mind that the 1979 Revolution/Coupe was the result of an alliance between the Communists and the Islamics. Once power had been sized, the Islamics turned on the Communists and eliminated them. 

I doubt that today's Communists are even the slightest bit smarter than they were back then.

[Phaeton80]

22 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Fine, but what is an "illegal" war?

Militarily acting outside the confines of the US Constitution, like recurring wars of agression against sovereign states attempting to topple its government under authority of the AUMF resolution, without Senate approval.. several of which targetted governments were actually fighting against the very terrorists the AUMF was designed to be used against. I´d say that fits the illegal warfare category pretty nicely, serving interests other than that of the US population, implying an enemy inside the gates instead of all those ´evil babykilling monsters lurking out there hellbent on attacking the USA´..

Did the Russian Duma issue a formal declaration of war in regards to Syria?

Russia is not at war with Syria, their presence has been explicitly approved, requested rather.

Did Iran?

Same as Russia, Iranian assets are in Syria´s territory on request of the standing Syrian government.

Can't anyone in the whole Middle East have one of their little wars without trying to drag everyone else into it?

Syria has no interest in dragging everyone else into it, her opposition does.. especially given the strategy to topple Al Assad has failed rather miserably thusfar.

Such as what, exactly?

Im not really in a mood to take the time to point out the implications of the recent developments in regards to the Western block´s incessant warring and warmongering against (manufactured) perceived enemies, racking up the military spending across the boards to unprecedented levels. Suffice to say, the native population in the targetted nations arent the only ones a war is bveing waged against.

So, we just have to sit back and let everyone attack us and do nothing about it? Be helpless and compliant like a battered wife.... like Europeans. I'm sure you and your buddies would love that, but guess again. 

Not really, your nation just has to stop starting wars of agression every bloody couple of years or so. It would be about time as well, given the USA has been at war approx. 222 out of 239 years since its inception, independence. All, ofcourse, in an altruistic effort to ´keep the world safe´, ´defend the peace´.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Phaeton80

[aztek]

we do what our military and economical power lets us get away with, and so does every single nation.

[RoofGardener]

23 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Think it would be wise to assess the Israeli connection and not stare yourself blind on SA. This goes for the ME as well as the September event that kicked off the socalled 'War on Terror'.

From where Im standing, Israel seems to be the key to, one of the main sources of the problem you (and I) describe here.

Oh PLEASE. That is nonsense. Israel might have been happy about the invasion of Iraq, but would hardly care about Afghanistan, and they certainly had no meaningful influence on America's decision to attack Iraq the second time around. As for Israel being the cause of the Syrian civil war, that is just preposterous. 

[Phaeton80]

Thats fine, lets just agree to disagree Gardener.

[Phaeton80]

Heres a strikingly relevant piece on the subject matter.. Straight from one of the main ´Russian Stooge´ propaganda machines out there, boosting that petty Muslim apologizer Paul Craig Roberts..

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-18/paul-craig-roberts-us-dead-man-walking

 

 

[Setton]

On 16/09/2018 at 10:14 PM, RavenHawk said:

Break-away colonies are usually, “the apple that doesn't fall far from the tree”.  They grow up to follow in the footsteps of the parent and sometimes supplant the parent.  Our Charters of Freedom took us beyond the English Bill of Rights.  We more than supplanted the parent.  We evolved above Socialism

Really? You evolved above a concept that didn't exist at the time? 

Say rather, you stopped keeping up with the progress of the rest of the western world when you turned traitor. 

Two sides of the same coin. 

[RoofGardener]

27 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Thats fine, lets just agree to disagree Gardener.

I disagree 

[RoofGardener]

5 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Heres a strikingly relevant piece on the subject matter.. Straight from one of the main ´Russian Stooge´ propaganda machines out there, boosting that petty Muslim apologizer Paul Craig Roberts..

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-18/paul-craig-roberts-us-dead-man-walking

 

 

ROFL.... the author is delusional. 

Here is one selected snippet.. but it is typical of the "foaming-at-the-brain" rest of it. 

...Apparently, Washington has succeeded in delaying the final liberation of Syria from US-supported terrorists. However, the Russian military, if not the Russian government, understands that at this late stage in the game, Russia cannot back down without being inundated with massive provocations as the price of its rectitude. This is why there is an armada of Russian navy off the coast of Syria armed with Russia’s new hypersonic missiles against which the US has no defense whatsoever. If it comes to a conflict, it is the Russian government’s choice alone whether any US ship will still be afloat.

Utter fantasy. The Russian 3m22 Zircon missile is still under test, and is unlikely to come into service (if it even works) until 2022. Oh.. and that "armada" ? It's about 12 ships... some of them landing craft and supply ships, and most of the rest light frigates and corvettes. The Harry S Truman battle group could sink them in a trice. 

 

[aztek]

 do not forget tug boats, the tow trucks of the sea, lol Russian navy goes nowhere without them

Edited September 19, 2018 by aztek

[Phaeton80]

Well, this fleet recently engaged in missile drills along the Syrian coast, officially merely armed with the Kalibr missile system, but who knows. If indeed functional, the odss would shift.. considerably. But agreed, it might be a wee bit overenthused. Not a reason to disregard the general point made though, or.. maybe it is, I dont really care.

[aztek]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

 The Russian 3m22 Zircon missile is still under test, and is unlikely to come into service (if it even works) until 2022.

perfect place and time to test them, the thing is, they are more dangerous now, than if they were  in mass production, you never know where it will fly now, and you can't do anything about  it. especially at hypersonic speed.  it is like with a bad shooter, you are safe as long as he aims at you, but everyone around is in danger

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

. Militarily acting outside the confines of the US Constitution, like recurring wars of agression against sovereign states attempting to topple its government under authority of the AUMF resolution, without Senate approval.. several of which targetted governments were actually fighting against the very terrorists the AUMF was designed to be used against. I´d say that fits the illegal warfare category pretty nicely, serving interests other than that of the US population, implying an enemy inside the gates instead of all those ´evil babykilling monsters lurking out there hellbent on attacking the USA´..

That is just so much BS!  So, since you can’t seem to able to define an illegal war, perhaps you can just point out an example of one?

 

Russia is not at war with Syria, their presence has been explicitly approved, requested rather.

And yet, Russia is at war.

 

Same as Russia, Iranian assets are in Syria´s territory on request of the standing Syrian government.

Iran is at war too, but they are trying to maintain their leverage (for the next war) on SA and Israel.

 

Syria has no interest in dragging everyone else into it, her opposition does.. especially given the strategy to topple Al Assad has failed rather miserably thusfar.

I don’t think Assad cares one way or the other.  He’s not going to be able to rule all of Syria anyway.  He’s going to have to be more brutal than before just to keep what he does have together.  He’ll just be a puppet and he’s on borrowed time.  The rebel war will just shift into a different gear.  The only future Syria has is to remove Assad and setup new elections reflecting the Sunni majority and securing rights for the Christians and Alawites.  And establishing a partnership with the Kurds.  Stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, stop interfering into Lebanon and then begin to establish relations with Israel.  But I don’t think Iran will stand for that.

 

Im not really in a mood to take the time to point out the implications of the recent developments in regards to the Western block´s incessant warring and warmongering against (manufactured) perceived enemies, racking up the military spending across the boards to unprecedented levels. Suffice to say, the native population in the targetted nations arent the only ones a war is bveing waged against.

Get back to us in a few years on those manufactured perceived enemies.  Just imagine the havoc if we didn’t spend a thing on defense??

 

Not really, your nation just has to stop starting wars of agression every bloody couple of years or so. It would be about time as well, given the USA has been at war approx. 222 out of 239 years since its inception, independence. All, ofcourse, in an altruistic effort to ´keep the world safe´, ´defend the peace´.

We don’t start them, we finish them.  When we get involved, it’s usually because somebody else has been dicking around.  You think all we need to do is just stop our wars?  Somehow, I don’t think that is going to stop wars at all.  Wars will happen without us.  When we retreat from the world stage is when wars and unrest go on the increase (i.e. the 8 years under Obama).

[RavenHawk]

4 hours ago, Setton said:

Really? You evolved above a concept that didn't exist at the time? 

You’re referring to the term.  The concept has been around from the first time someone stepped forward as a king or dictator and has plague man ever since.

 

Say rather, you stopped keeping up with the progress of the rest of the western world

Rather you are too ignorant to “get it”.  You deliberately ignore even attempting to follow along.  You can’t look beyond the outside of your box.  The world is full of progress.  The Code of Hammurabi, Ten Commandments, The Laws of the 12 Tables, Edict of Milan, Charter of Cluny, Magna Carta, Disputation on the Power of Indulgences, Peace of Westphalia, English Bill of Rights, US Constitution.  This is not an all inclusive list, but highlights a slow progress out of tyranny (Socialism).  Just because we call this the “West” doesn’t mean it is free, just a bit freer than the rest.  Much of the West is a benevolent form of Socialism and in time, it’ll become evermore restrictive as long as charters of liberty have been granted by power.

 

when you turned traitor. 

Turn traitor?  To Socialism?  Then I stand proudly guilty!

 

Two sides of the same coin. 

What coin is that?

[AnchorSteam]

6 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That is just so much BS!  So, since you can’t seem to able to define an illegal war, perhaps you can just point out an example of one?

 

And yet, Russia is at war.

 

Iran is at war too, but they are trying to maintain their leverage (for the next war) on SA and Israel.

 

I don’t think Assad cares one way or the other.  He’s not going to be able to rule all of Syria anyway.  He’s going to have to be more brutal than before just to keep what he does have together.  He’ll just be a puppet and he’s on borrowed time.  The rebel war will just shift into a different gear.  The only future Syria has is to remove Assad and setup new elections reflecting the Sunni majority and securing rights for the Christians and Alawites.  And establishing a partnership with the Kurds.  Stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, stop interfering into Lebanon and then begin to establish relations with Israel.  But I don’t think Iran will stand for that.

 

Get back to us in a few years on those manufactured perceived enemies.  Just imagine the havoc if we didn’t spend a thing on defense??

 

We don’t start them, we finish them.  When we get involved, it’s usually because somebody else has been dicking around.  You think all we need to do is just stop our wars?  Somehow, I don’t think that is going to stop wars at all.  Wars will happen without us.  When we retreat from the world stage is when wars and unrest go on the increase (i.e. the 8 years under Obama).

 

Well damn, you bet me to it!

 

Maybe these guys are just upset about US defending Europe because it keeps people like them from taking over. 

[RavenHawk]

59 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Well damn, you bet me to it!

This stuff is not rocket science; it’s just common sense and logic.

 

Maybe these guys are just upset about US defending Europe because it keeps people like them from taking over. 

That could be but I wonder what they’d be thinking if it was the Morgenthau Plan instead of the Marshall Plan that was used to rebuild Europe after WWII?  The Morgenthau Plan called for the demilitarization and partitioning of Germany.  Many felt that would have allowed the Soviet Union to take over much of Europe and influence the rest.  I wonder what these people would think if they grew up in an East German-like environment instead?

[Setton]

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You’re referring to the term.  The concept has been around from the first time someone stepped forward as a king or dictator and has plague man ever since.

No. It hasn't. Socialism and monarchy could not be further from each other. 

Quote

Rather you are too ignorant to “get it”.  You deliberately ignore even attempting to follow along.  You can’t look beyond the outside of your box.  The world is full of progress.  The Code of Hammurabi, Ten Commandments, The Laws of the 12 Tables, Edict of Milan, Charter of Cluny, Magna Carta, Disputation on the Power of Indulgences, Peace of Westphalia, English Bill of Rights, US Constitution.  This is not an all inclusive list, but highlights a slow progress out of tyranny (Socialism).  

That's the problem though. Your fanatical belief in the constitution has stopped you developing as far as the rest of the western world since then. 

Quote

Turn traitor?  To Socialism?  Then I stand proudly guilty!

To your country at the time. 

You call it, freeing yourselves from tyranny, others will call it treason. Like, I said, two sides, same coin. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Setton

[RavenHawk]

4 hours ago, Setton said:

No. It hasn't. Socialism and monarchy could not be further from each other.

How many times have I talked on this?  I guess the nature of such a forum requires a constant observance to consistency.  Yes, the concept has been around.  Socialism is Monarchy sans the Monarch.  It developed in Europe from an alternative to the Divine Rights of Kings.  The Monarch is just replaced by an Oligarch.  There can be benevolent rulers or malevolent tyrants.  Ultimately, the leadership supplants the natural rights of the subject to that of the ‘King’.  This is the core basis of Socialism which we know today.  On paper, all forms of government (including Democracy) fall under Socialism save one.  The one deliberately designed to be different.  The one based in natural rights and the protection of them.

 

That's the problem though. Your fanatical belief in the constitution has stopped you developing as far as the rest of the western world since then. 

Really?  I would say that is your problem.  It is this nation that is built on the fanatical belief in the Constitution that has surpassed the western world.  It’s very interesting that you dropped perhaps the key part of my reply?  As long as rights (liberty) are granted by power, no one is free.  It is not your fault because you know no better.  You’ve never tasted true freedom.  Blackstone and Locke wrote about it.  They could see the shortcomings in English Law and influenced our Founding Fathers to improve and evolve.

 

To your country at the time. 

I got to hear this out.  How so?

 

You call it, freeing yourselves from tyranny, others will call it treason.

How is it treason for people to seek liberty?  You wouldn’t be saying that if you knew liberty.  That’s the fundamental change that Obama was seeking for this nation, so that he could begin the process to dismantle our Constitution.

 

Like, I said, two sides, same coin. 

Not the same coin, but definitely complete opposites.

[Phaeton80]

19 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That is just so much BS!  So, since you can’t seem to able to define an illegal war, perhaps you can just point out an example of one?

Well I guess I stand corrected, you bring some impressive points to the table I wasnt aware of.. Like the utterly convincing 'Thats so much BS!'.. I dont know if such a response is fruitful in any given discourse where you come from, but where I come from.. not so much (in fact, you'd be hardpressed to find anyone taking you serious with that kind of content Im afraid)..

Some (random) sources to underwrite my previous statements (I did mistakenly used Senate instead of Congress, for which I stand guilty ):

Quote

The U.S. Constitution dictates Congress as the sole governmental body possessing the power to declare war, yet the United States has been waging war (both overt and covert) across the globe since the end of World War II without any such mandated authorization, and since Sept. 14, 2001—in the name of the “War on Terror”—under the auspices of the controversial AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force), an act authorizing the president’s to use the U.S. Armed Forces against those responsible for the Sept. 11th Terror Attacks and any “associated forces.” Despite the blatant lack of congressional declarations of war as specified by the U.S. Constitution’s War Powers Clause, and the stipulations of “those nations, organizations, or persons…[who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,” three presidents and countless politicians since then have justified our ongoing, open-ended global assault and its accompanying death and devastation with this otherwise broadly worded act, validating an all-out, Illegal And Perpetual War that has spanned 14 countries (that we know of; most recently targeting ISIS in Syria and Iraq), claimed untold lives, including countless innocent women and children, and even marked and executed its own American citizens, with no end in sight.

https://www.usnewsbeat.com/2017/11/15/aumf-americas-illegal-perpetual-war/

And..

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/illegal-wars-the-new-american-way/

 

Quote

And yet, Russia is at war.

Another one of those impressive, convincing counter statements without any body, any citation, or anything else for that matter.

Russia is not at war with the sovereign state known as Syria, or any other for that matter.. period.

 

Iran is at war too, but they are trying to maintain their leverage (for the next war) on SA and Israel.

Iran is not at war with the sovereign state known as Syria, or any other for that matter.. period. Your statement is neither here nor there in this particular context, you are merely throwing up words in a simple effort to counter mine. Words that have no bearing on the discussion at hand.

 

I don’t think Assad cares one way or the other.  He’s not going to be able to rule all of Syria anyway.  He’s going to have to be more brutal than before just to keep what he does have together.  He’ll just be a puppet and he’s on borrowed time.  The rebel war will just shift into a different gear.  The only future Syria has is to remove Assad and setup new elections reflecting the Sunni majority and securing rights for the Christians and Alawites.  And establishing a partnership with the Kurds.  Stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, stop interfering into Lebanon and then begin to establish relations with Israel.  But I don’t think Iran will stand for that.

In all honesty, I really dont care what you think, especially given the game you are playing here.. and your trackrecord of similar tactics in the not so distant past. Syria has no interest in a beesnest of nations entering her borders.. She has only requested support from her allies after the usual suspects send an endless influx of foreign criminal mercenaries posing as Muslims to destabilize and subsequently topple the most recent aim of the US's wrath, the most recent ME head of state standing in the way of Washington's and her symbiots (talk about 'Axis of Evil') geo strategical aspirations in the region.

 

Get back to us in a few years on those manufactured perceived enemies.  Just imagine the havoc if we didn’t spend a thing on defense??

Another indication of the malignant, dishonest games you continuously play in discussions like these. I never said the US shouldnt spend 'a thing' on defense. I was lamenting the fact the US military spending has never been so ridiculously high, waging wars (that is, starting them through several strategems besides the direct approach like the case with Iraq, as there is the use of fifth columns, inciting social unrest, use of NGO's; culminating in all out war.. and if the proxies prove unsuccesful, the US military is send in. As seen in Syria, Lybia for instance. Neither the continuous warring, nor the ridiculous military budget is in the interest of the American People. Get back to me in a few years, when your nation has been completely hollowed out, an empty shell of her former self, raped from the inside out.. by people you and those like you vested their hope in.. agressively cheering them on even. It would be comical if it wasnt so utterly sad.

 

We don’t start them, we finish them.  When we get involved, it’s usually because somebody else has been dicking around.  You think all we need to do is just stop our wars?  Somehow, I don’t think that is going to stop wars at all.  Wars will happen without us.  When we retreat from the world stage is when wars and unrest go on the increase (i.e. the 8 years under Obama).

No, you start them allright. What you are describing here is some sort of pipedream I can imagine you'd love to convince yourself of.. Painting the US as some righteous bully beater, which couldnt be further from the truth. Any and every US military action is in the interest of the USA and USA alone.. well, the interest of the US and her cohorts, close allies like SA/Israel. To end these wars of agression your nation has seeded throughout history wouldnt stop all wars - another shrewd strawman I never verbalised - but it would have prevented the ME from becoming the chaos ridden extremist sesspool it is now.

Concerning Obama, he is the first POTUS who sat out both his terms while continuously at war, you got some reading up to do, oh ye crystal ball wielding allknowing scribe.

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Phaeton80

[AnchorSteam]

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That could be but I wonder what they’d be thinking if it was the Morgenthau Plan instead of the Marshall Plan that was used to rebuild Europe after WWII?  The Morgenthau Plan called for the demilitarization and partitioning of Germany.  Many felt that would have allowed the Soviet Union to take over much of Europe and influence the rest.  I wonder what these people would think if they grew up in an East German-like environment instead?

Probably something like the people of Poland, Hungary and other Visegrad nations are these days.

[Phaeton80]

 

Quote

Mr. Pompeo overruled concerns from most of the State Department specialists involved in the debate who were worried about the rising civilian death toll in Yemen. Those who objected included specialists in the region and in military affairs. He sided with his legislative affairs team after they argued that suspending support could undercut plans to sell more than 120,000 precision-guided missiles to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, according to a classified State Department memo and people familiar with the debate.

The number of civilian casualties cited in the WSJ report — 16,700 killed or injured — is on the very lowest end of estimates to emerge over the past three years of the conflict. Some Yemeni reporters and regional humanitarian organizations have suggested the actual figure is closer to 70,000 killed. 

In August the Saudi-US coalition bombing campaign, which has been largely ignored in international media since it began in 2015, was thrust into the American media spotlight after a bus full of school children was struck by a guided bomb produced by Lockheed Martin.

The attack, which killed 40 children, was described by the Saudi coalition  — of which the US plays a central role — as part of ongoing "legitimate" military operations against pro-Iran Houthi forces. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-20/leaked-memo-shows-us-overlooked-mass-civilian-deaths-yemen-preserve-arms-sales

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-u-s-diplomat-backed-continuing-support-for-saudi-war-in-yemen-over-objections-of-staff-1537441200

Fighting the good fight, defender of peace, champion against (Sunni Wahhabi) terrorism; the War on Terror.

Yay!

 

[RavenHawk]

On 9/20/2018 at 11:46 AM, Phaeton80 said:

Well I guess I stand corrected, you bring some impressive points to the table I wasnt aware of.. Like the utterly convincing 'Thats so much BS!'.. I dont know if such a response is fruitful in any given discourse where you come from, but where I come from.. not so much (in fact, you'd be hardpressed to find anyone taking you serious with that kind of content Im afraid)..

You’re not too up on constructing an argument, are you?  Making the observation that your statement is BS is not a pivotal point, just concern that you may not have all the facts.  Then I move on to making the convincing argument.  The main point that you missed should be that you need to look at the War Powers Act, and then get back to us.  In the meantime since you can’t define an illegal war, maybe you have an example?  What makes it hard to take you serious is that you obviously dodge the question.

 

Another one of those impressive, convincing counter statements without any body, any citation, or anything else for that matter.

The comment is self-evident.  What is Russia doing in Syria?  Warring!  They are killing people.

 

Russia is not at war with the sovereign state known as Syria, or any other for that matter.. period.

Who says anything about being at war with Syria?

 

Iran is not at war with the sovereign state known as Syria, or any other for that matter.. period.

Of course Iran is not at war with Syria.  It is at war with the Rebels/ISIS.  And it is deeply involved in a covert war against SA.  And it would love to be able to move against Israel more directly than it has been.  It needs to secure Syria for those purposes.

 

Your statement is neither here nor there in this particular context, you are merely throwing up words in a simple effort to counter mine. Words that have no bearing on the discussion at hand.

If you could stop throwing words up and try to understand the situation, then you wouldn’t be so confused.  You are just willfully ignorant of the facts.  Primarily because it destroys your fantasy world of your vision of what America is.  All of your assumptions are so misguided.

 

In all honesty, I really dont care what you think,

Tell me something I don’t know.

 

especially given the game you are playing here.. and your trackrecord of similar tactics in the not so distant past.

What game?  Track record?  It would help if both of us were in this debate and not in some fantasy world.  I know I am in the real world, just not sure about you??  Again, your preconceptions are so very much off.

 

Syria has no interest in a beesnest of nations entering her borders..

That’s kind of what I implied.  Russia is only there to defend Tartus.  Idlib is just too close.  Assad has no idea what Iran is doing in Syria.  He wasn’t aware of the US strike until afterwards.  I doubt he knows if anybody else is in his nation.  There are probably entities from Israel, SA, Turkey, and maybe even Jordan.  Who knows who else?

 

She has only requested support from her allies after the usual suspects send an endless influx of foreign criminal mercenaries posing as Muslims to destabilize and subsequently topple the most recent aim of the US's wrath, the most recent ME head of state standing in the way of Washington's and her symbiots (talk about 'Axis of Evil') geo strategical aspirations in the region.

You’re very confused.  Not all Rebels are ISIS and for the Rebel’s, Syria is their country too.  They have been asking for assistance from the world for a long time.  It has been secular leaders like Assad and Hussein that have given radical Islam the spark it needs.  It’s a recipe for destabilization.  You can’t just let them fight it out because even if one side should win the current fighting, the war will still wage on and will spread.  You can’t really fully support one side over the other because the unrest will not stop.  The only answer was the invasion of Iraq.  Our influence and immediate response capabilities over the period of generations would eventually put an end to it.  That is ultimately the responsibility of a superpower.  I’m sure this is all over your head.  You just can’t see the big picture.

 

Another indication of the malignant, dishonest games you continuously play in discussions like these.

Pointing out your ignorance isn’t a game.  Perhaps it should be…  And pointing out the inevitable isn’t a game either.

 

I never said the US shouldnt spend 'a thing' on defense. I was lamenting the fact the US military spending has never been so ridiculously high,

What do you mean ridiculously high?  The budget had been dwindling drastically under Obama.  We went from something like spending more than the next 20 nations combined to about the next 8.  Woefully pitiful for a superpower.  @AnchorSteam pointed out that the US population is about 5% of the worlds.  When you look at that one fact, our defense budget is hardly adequate.  When we are in that ‘20’ range, we see a more peaceful world.  Anything less, we end up back in the era of the true arms race.  That led to the horrors of mechanized war.  If we pay what your lament feels good to you, then what’s the point in spending anything at all for defense?  I am very thankful that you don’t have any say in what our budget is.

 

waging wars (that is, starting them through several strategems besides the direct approach like the case with Iraq, as there is the use of fifth columns, inciting social unrest, use of NGO's; culminating in all out war.. and if the proxies prove unsuccesful, the US military is send in.

You seem to forget who the enemy is.  Too bad you don’t understand that.  Your statement is so much ignorance and babbling.  In the case of going to war, you use every tool in the tool box.  I think that is what you are trying to describe.  It’s always best to win a war without firing a shot, but if you have to shoot, then keep the loss of life to a minimum.

 

As seen in Syria, Lybia for instance.

Syria and Libya are so much different than Iraq and Afghanistan.  The later is understandable, but the former, there is no clear reason.  Many think that Syria and Libya were an attempt to inflame radical Islam.  You can point to the Cairo speech in 2009 and the pull out of our troops from Iraq without a SOFA.  Everything Obama has done has been to incite unrest and rebellion.  Either with Islam or between the races in this country.

 

Neither the continuous warring, nor the ridiculous military budget is in the interest of the American People.

It’s not?  Being strong and prudent is most certainly in the interest of the American people.

 

Get back to me in a few years, when your nation has been completely hollowed out, an empty shell of her former self, raped from the inside out.. by people you and those like you vested their hope in.. agressively cheering them on even. It would be comical if it wasnt so utterly sad.

That is what was happening under Obama.  Most people here were beginning to wonder what kind of future we would have.  Now under Trump, I’m more confident of our future.  I believe we will survive longer than yours.

 

No, you start them allright. What you are describing here is some sort of pipedream I can imagine you'd love to convince yourself of.. Painting the US as some righteous bully beater, which couldnt be further from the truth.

You can’t start something that is already underway.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, out of the last 4000 years, there have only been a total of 6 days conflict free.  We are a warrior people.  But we are precisely that – the righteous bully beater for the past 70 years.  It has allowed you to grow up and live in relative peace in your own independent country without being a part of a National Socialist, Communist, or Islamic satellite state.  But I guess that is what you want…  It’s just that losing all that cultural history doesn’t sit well with me.  It’s sad when you think about it, that the War of Dutch Independence that lead to the War of English Succession was the impetus for the American Revolution.  From Leiden to Sint Eustatius.

 

Any and every US military action is in the interest of the USA and USA alone.. well, the interest of the US and her cohorts, close allies like SA/Israel. To end these wars of agression your nation has seeded throughout history wouldnt stop all wars - another shrewd strawman I never verbalised - but it would have prevented the ME from becoming the chaos ridden extremist sesspool it is now.

Never said that American Hegemony would prevent all wars.  I would have thought you’d have figured it out by now?  It’s not a matter of preventing or controlling human nature but managing it.  If we didn’t interfere when we did, the ME would have been in flames by now.  It still may end up that way.  We may have only delayed the inevitable.

 

Concernign Obama, he is the first POTUS who sat out both his terms while continuously at war, you got some reading up to do, oh yee crystal ball wielding allknowing scribe.

To be fair, it wasn’t all on his watch.  He did make good on a campaign promise and ignorantly got us out of Iraq (the invasion being the only thing keeping the genie in the bottle) and allowed ISIS to grow.  Why would I need to do some reading, the ME is a region I have studied for 40 years now.  We’ll see how well my crystal ball works.