cool breeze

If you follow the links you'll find that the article does talk about the Muslim Brotherhood and their involvement with the CIA in starting this "second" revolution ( second in quotes because its such an old part of the world). But I am completely unsurprised You didn't bother to finish reading it. I gotta admit it scares me a little too (specially if my dad found out) but not as much as ww3! I remember when the Greorgia Osseta stuff went down, and we on the forums know what was really going on, but american media caught by surprise were in full wartime propaganda mode pumping us up for a potential response to " an unprovoked Russian invasion of our ally" or whatever And Hillary Clinton as secretary of state was being craziest of all and really seemed to want to go to war with Russia over it. Luckily the conflict was over before the media had time to get the public to find out where Georgia was. Edit to add. Oh, and thanks again BIGDUKE for that. Ive been feeling uniformed after you left having gotten so spoiled.

That was some heavy sheet but the line at the end of the AHT article busted me up. Needed relief after the rest of that.

Was just going over that section again and clicked the link. He basically just breezes over it by giving a link that goes into great detail about the beginnings of the uprising. Providing a lot of names and such. Basically says it all starts with a CIA staged thing because of not just the pipeline but a bunch of other reasons it list. I don't know about any of that stuff so I'm not an appropriate judge to whether the article has any merit but it sure sounds believable and my impression of the CIA's modus operandi for a long while now. Youre the one that made the thread not that bad if it gets locked, the links still there and its not much of a thread yet anyway. Its from the American Herald Tribune, don't know if that means anything

The focus of the article is the relationship between America and Russia and its potential to spill into full spectrum and eventually possibly strategic nuclear doomsday, not about how nations are allowed to deal with dissidents/rioters/insurgents/terrorists/traitors/revolutionary heroes/whatever. So I think it was left out as kind of a moot point to the discussion he was having with his audience.

It definitely got a lot less coverage than Arab Spring as I (a member of the American masses for the most part) didn't hear about the pipeline but did hear about Arab Spring, which was kind of one of the points the author was making around that point in the article.

Yeah but he only implies it he doesn't actually say anything like that, just plots the data and told me about something I hadn't heard, probably because I don't try to keep up on the news. You're right that it would have been more well rounded to mention it but I think he was just trying to limit what he said to relatively new information. Everyone knows that the Arab Spring happened already.

Just getting to the conclusion now but I gotta say it's kinda scared the pants off me. I don't read the news much so its the first time I heard a lot of that, didn't know that the US had been thinking about air strikes against Syrian airfields, or that Russia has basically said that doing so could/would start a limited nuclear war and cyberwar. I didn't know about the pipeline deal angle. Article seemed legit, wasn't blaming anybody or doing good guy bad guy or whatever, just a long list of statements of fact. At least that's how it seemed. I think its going to come out alright and cooler heads will prevail, but it really does seem more dangerous than the cold war right now. @#$%@#! What do you guys think, what are the chances that Hillary would bomb Assad's bases? I'm feeling like I might have to vote trump even though I'm not a racist or a sexist (sorry for the bad joke. there arn't any(many) republicans in San Jose)

Haven't had time to finish it, actually only about 1/4 through, but so far I gotta say kinda backs up the whole ongoing cold war perspective I've been trying to harp on.

holy cow a gay bomb funniest weapon i ever read, busted up so hard.

Remember the name or anything of this article? That was a great story! My favorite yet. Kinda blimp obsessed.

WOW BIGDUKE6! Great to see you been too long! Glad you had a chance to stop by. Agree with you 100% percent! (unless some of that was about them "slapping down" my lazy argument )

lololololol Thanks for that

Totally agree with you on all of those points tank cabbage launcher

In general the "terrorism experts" in the newspaper and on news tv (if you watch that, seems like you might but no offense intended) are mostly not Arab and as such probably don't have the most appropriate perspective. My family friend is the most of a middle east expert that I know, he's a middle east studies tenured professor at Cambridge, hes Arab, old, western, been studying it professionally for I guess 40+ years, at least close to that. He was pretty dismissive of our national coverage of middle eastern affairs. Pretty much just propaganda. My dad on the other hand reads the paper/ papers every day hes retired so he pretty much does world events and politics with some history all day everyday, and follows the party line hard, just like you. So my dad wanted to argue with the expert about his broad characterizations. The guy didn't bother because he knew it was a hopeless cause. Despite being a serious expert on the subjects, newspapers and tv journalists never ask for his perspective. No I don't believe only in black and white, good and evil. But I do believe in them and think it's helpful to see the world "as it truly is" or some such. A lot of things are neither good or evil, most things in fact, but its useful to recognize the things that do fit into those two categories. I don't think the US is evil, I'm so wildly patriotic as to think America is the best thing to ever happen to the world, somehow, despite all the bad things we've done over the years. Destiny or somesuch. But that doesn't me the US doesn't do a lot of evil things, big and small. I'm opposed to moral relativism not because I see everything in black and white, I don't, I see things as mostly gray and up for interpretation. I'm opposed to it because like humanitarianism, its just a way to justify things that are on questionable moral ground. Like us funding the rebellion in Syria. I never said the US and Russia were equal as both imperfect and therefor evil, I think neither is evil, they are both nations, and nations are good, they help make civilization (along with some less nice things). I never said they were equal in any respect really, although they are equal in many respects (such as both being big powerful nations). Yeah its good to inspire people to fight for a better life, but it sounds like you are admitting that it was a basically hopeless military campaign, that had almost no chance to do anything but mess everything up. In which case I can't see how you are defending us continuing the struggle with our continued support.

"You've got a flawed position and I've pointed out where and why it is flawed. If you want to dance around it instead of defending your position, that's fine. But it's not doing your argument any credit. Steve" To me I have a very simple and straight forward position and none of you're "attacks" have even been close to hitting let alone denting armour, while I've been staying still rather than dancing.

If you're ignorant of recent history, then please don't speak about it. Go and look back at the articles written at the time. Check out the maps. Assad was losing the war very early on, very quickly. This was temporarily stabilized by Iran using Hezbolah and other ground forces. Russia backed it up with weapons and munitions. Then things started to shift again and Assad was once again on the ropes. Then the Russian bombing campaign and mercenaries came into play and things have once again sorta stabilized. As for what would have come after, if you call a regime that murders hundreds of thousands of people as a "functioning modern state", I suppose you can do that. Steve" First of all the people who thought it would work should have factored Syria having friends who might help into their plans. I assume they did and knew it wouldn't work but I'm a cynic. Secondly I feel your beating around the bush as to my question, and an unconventional force doing something like capturing Damascus against a semi-functioning state (so I'm not counting post invasion Iraq against ISIS) goes without historical precedent. Without the plan to overthrow Assad via "rebellion" having a viable means of taking it all the way to the finish, it doesn't seem like anything more than a way to cause more devastation in an already devastated region. "Arguing morality is especially difficult. It is something I've been loath to do for most of this thread. Instead I've been arguing about responsibility, as one would argue in a court of law. When someone wishes to dismiss this approach and adopt a position of moral superiority, then they need to be prepared to engage on that level. And if they can not, then there's cause for calling the person out on it. Arguing a superior moral position comes with enormous responsibility, not flippant responses and shallow defenses. Steve" I don't see my responses as flippant or shallow and you haven't said anything to convince me otherwise in the slightest. You are the one that keeps using the moral high ground argument, US is good and Russia is bad, we can support rebellions because we are the good righteous guys and Russia can't because they are world terrorizors. All I said is that I believe in good and evil, but now Ill add that moral relativism is bunk and immoral. " Now you're just being silly. What you're saying, with one sweep of your hand, is that anybody that holds the opinion that Assad's murderous rampage didn't create the grounds for ISIS is a liar and in the pay of... I dunno, some evil global conspiracy? You're not going to get very far in a debate if that's your answer to everything that's uncomfortable for your point of view. " Besides you flagrantly putting words in my mouth here, how exactly did you get your number that most "terrorism experts" agree that it is "mostly assads fault"?

"I'd rather that we can actually look at Syria and see another US or who ever geo political strategy of toppling an anti-westernish regime and installing a new proxy. To deny the US has been doing so in the region is plain out sillyness. US can care less whether or not Syrians live under a dictator or what say you, they're more interested in the gains from it, or what directly effects the US. Assad is definitely not the creator of ISIS those are laughable claims, I'm quite sure a certain recentish war a while back in Iraq is one of the main reasons. The whole middle east is destabilized and that is far from Assad's fault. Steve you make good points sometimes but c'mon this one is pushing it too far. " That's my layman's perspective on it too. Sillyness.

If this was your position, who would argue with it? Instead you're arguing that the US and Russia are on a moral equivalency because the US is also a self interested party. That's where you run into rough waters. This is my position. I never said any of the words you're putting in my mouth, glad to see we are in agreement. (I win?!)

All of a sudden I felt real awkward calling some of our governments actions evil with all these wonderful vets on the forum of whom I have so much respect. Even when the nation is doing some evil things that the soldiers might be involved in, crimes against humanity and such excluded and not relevant, it is Good to join the military and be a soldier, even if the nation is currently engaged in a sort of evil war. Nations need soldiers and they should follow orders(within reason), its a very noble and good way to serve and sacrifice for ones nation and world peace.

" This confuses me a bit, since you agreed on my argument before, yet my argument was about how none of that mattered anyway! Though... HerrTomm" I'm not sure whats confusing about it so I'm not sure how to respond. I was agreeing with you that countries don't do what they think is best for the planet or good or whatever, but whatever is in their best interest and either justifiable or justification isn't necessary. But I was also saying that I believe in good and evil, and I think it would be better for the world if nations', particularly the US, would try harder to limit its actions to the "good" ones, while avoiding the "evil" ones, even if that isn't the best course of action based on some calculus using some morally relativistic humanitarian number crunching. Edit to add I don't mind being called hypocritical or illogical because I like arguing so much and am confident of not being those things (at least not much ), I'll point out for whatever reason that this was another escalation, as I hadn't actually called any of y'all hypocritical, just the US government, which unfortunately isn't any of you. But again I don't mind, feels like im finally getting into the thick of it And just because I didn't say it doesn't mean I didn't mean it

"Of course it is pointed, but it is neither ridiculous nor uncalled for. You are making arguments in favor of totalitarian regimes and their intents on the world around us as being no worse than what the West does. You dismiss, quite readily, any and all decent things the West does because it isn't pure. Yet at the same time you admit you wouldn't live in one of those regimes voluntarily. Your world view is both logically and morally flawed as it is hypocritical. It is only correct for me to point out the flaws in your arguments since you are trying to do the same to mine. It is what happens in a debate and if you don't like it you can either counter my logic or bow out. You could also look inward and see that maybe I've got a point. Steve" I think I admitted you had a lot of sound points, but not these. I did not argue any of those things, nor is my world view what you say or think it is. And I only actually argued with you about anything after you had called me "highly immoral and highly selfish". I do feel I should continue tho after the challenge and actually kinda appreciate the attention, no hard feelings, actually feel a little good to have riled you up

"Without Iran and Russia's help, but especially Russia's, Assad would have fallen 2-3 years ago. The earlier Assad fell the less likely there would be ISIS or at least the ISIS we know today. The #1 cause of ISIS is Assad. Of that pretty much all terrorism experts agree. " All the experts that won't say its mostly the US's fault. We've been destabilizing the region for a very long time. " Absolutely. And the facts definitely support that point of view. That is the overall hope for it, yes. And lucrative contracts and resources freed up to fight other wars and all the rest that goes along with it too. Without Iran and Russia's help, but especially Russia's, Assad would have fallen 2-3 years ago. The earlier Assad fell the less likely there would be ISIS or at least the ISIS we know today. The #1 cause of ISIS is Assad. Of that pretty much all terrorism experts agree." How would the rebels really have captured Damascus from the army? Bad credentials, I know, but my time playing CM makes that seem almost ludicrous. Has an uncon force ever done anything remotely like that against a functioning modern state before?

Didnt read your response yet, probably should but imma say my point first anyway. Maybe the main issue here is moral relativism vs a belief in good and evil. Although I guess you can be both. You are I think firmly in the moral relativism camp, and I firmly believe in good and evil. It is not evil to do self defense. Perspective is a key in good and evil, from the Russian peoples perspective they are acting in self defense, therefore it is not evil. To me our activity in the middle east is in no way self defense, and much of it sort of counts as evil. I see how everything you are saying probably make perfect sense from your perspective but moral relativism is sort of foreign to me, although I do see a lot of gray area and different perspectives.

"In both cases Russia is seeking to prolong Human suffering on a mass scale in order to achieve it's own political ends. It is seeking to be REWARDED for its behavior. The West is trying to stop both the Human suffering and in the process produce a more just world order (flawed as it might be). Steve" So you're saying the west is trying to stop the suffering by funding the rag tag uncon forces that are fighting to overthrown the Syrian government? And Russia is deliberately prolonging it by trying to help Assad crush the rebellion? So like the west is being good because these rag tag uncons have a good chance of overthrowing the government, and and then they could become a happy prosperous nation that happens to be western friendly, after they eventually rebuild the country from the rubble? And if it wasn't for the evil Ruskies helping Assad out it could already be just about over and the world would be just about ready to start being better? I tried to come back a little hard because I thought this bit was pointed at me and pretty ridiculous and uncalled for if so. "By not seeing a difference in paths one can not make things better for future generations. I personally find that to be highly immoral and highly selfish. Steve"

I think the best way for America to help the world is not from moral high ground bring its justice at gunpoint wherever "needed" , but by leading by example, and investing in itself rather than foreign meddling, to take care of its own problems before trying to take care of the worlds, by inventing and trading and building. I don't want it leading by example to say that it is right to take your populaces money to send weapons to the middle east to overthrow more of their governments.