Lessons posted:Backus posted:Lessons posted:if it actually came down to an invasion I'd prefer Assad won (though obviously he couldn't).
So you'd be pro-Assad? You support dictators and war criminals?
In cases of aggressive war I support the party under attack, period. This doesn't commit me to insane and idiotic positions like "It's wrong for Americans to criticize Bashar al-Assad because they have US privilege" and "Actually all the allegations of war crimes against Assad are made up"
seeing as you are trotting out long-discredited orientalist war propaganda on Libya, because you are clearly completely incognizant of your own imperial chauvinism, i'm going to say it's pretty safe to say that what you're thinking: it's made up
Lessons posted:And no I don't support the US government against Assad, if it actually came down to an invasion I'd prefer Assad won (though obviously he couldn't).
so you are presently supporting Assad then, you fucking idiot. Or i guess you don't understand what a bunch of Gulf-funded, NATO-equipped foreign fighters are doing in Syria?
discipline posted:I don't know I think a covert brutal shadow war is probably worse because you end up with chemical weapons being used and brutal crimes against humanity and pretty much zero accountability. it's probably cheaper and easier. also it's easy to replicate. you keep thinking that the main goal of the US supporting the rebels is to overthrow the assad regime but this is probably false, organs like the NYT and WP have said pretty clearly it's in america's best interest to drag out this civil war and ruin 50+ years of progressive infrastructure, universal education and healthcare etc. a "failed state" is actually attractive in foreign policy sometimes
I don't think the NYT, the WP or you have any idea what the US's 50-year strategy for Syria is, in fact I'm pretty sure they don't have a 50-year strategy and the driving factor behind these events is opportunistic intervention that they make up as events unfold. You also had a completely different, mutually exclusive analysis of the US's strategy in Syria last year, (clear out Assad to make way for neoliberal Saudi petrodollars), other people have told me the US wants boots on the ground in the next 5-8 years. What all of these analyses have in common is that they're complete speculation with absolutely no evidence to back them up.
Crow posted:Lessons posted:And no I don't support the US government against Assad, if it actually came down to an invasion I'd prefer Assad won (though obviously he couldn't).
so you are presently supporting Assad then, you fucking idiot. Or i guess you don't understand what a bunch of Gulf-funded, NATO-equipped foreign fighters are doing in Syria?
Supplying weapons isn't the same thing as invading and it's really stupid that people want to pretend it is.
Lessons posted:Crow posted:Lessons posted:And no I don't support the US government against Assad, if it actually came down to an invasion I'd prefer Assad won (though obviously he couldn't).
so you are presently supporting Assad then, you fucking idiot. Or i guess you don't understand what a bunch of Gulf-funded, NATO-equipped foreign fighters are doing in Syria?
Supplying weapons isn't the same thing as invading and it's really stupid that people want to pretend it is.
supplying weapons, smuggling in fighters, training them, planning logistics, funding them. So you're saying it's "really stupid" to pretend NATO special forces and mercenaries operating in a country in a state of war with the US and its allies is not an invasion. Oh right
discipline posted:thug lessons you are cutting a whole lot of slack to a country that assassinates its own citizens without trial or even presenting evidence, operates black sites for torture in both hemispheres, a country that murders Guantanamo Bay detainees who are there without trial or evidence against international law, refuses to clean up its own ordinance in Afghanistan and a country that lies about basically everything including regularly, frequently, in fact 100% of the time, its reasons for going to war
If It comes out later that the US is secretly coordinating the rebel operation by sending in special forces teams and armed mercenaries you can all laugh at me but I don't think it's too much to ask for evidence that it's actually occurring. I don't think that's cutting them slack any more than asking for evidence that Bush did 9/11.
jools posted:again, wasnt special forces in syria part of Those Stratfor Leaks
I don't know. Do you think it's fair to characterize the situation in Syria as a US invasion?
Crow posted:yeah there's alot of 'anonymous sources' saying that NATO special forces are already operating inthe country, including the Stratfor leaks, but of course that is completely uncharacteristic of American empire right? They just have global special forces strike teams, operate in the whole of Africa, have historically carried out military or covert actions in virtually every country, but all the 'anonymous reports' (too bad the department of defense won't hold a press conference about their covert programs of destabilization and coup, right?) aren't credible or likely. Well, there just isn't anything to back it up, for an idiot, at the fucking circus
What I see here is one 2-year-old report from a pretend spy magazine that an unspecified number of special forces were in Syria, not a lot of sources, and then stuff that happened in other countries. And it's still nothing on the scale you're talking about, not to mention that Hezbollah has fighters in Syria probably on Iran's direction and this is definitely not an Iranian invasion.
Lessons posted:What I see here is one 2-year-old report from a pretend spy magazine
"Military intelligence" am i right fellas? Thats an oxymoron right there fellas. The CIA is actually really incompetent Uhh *nervously flits eyes towards handler for direction*
discipline posted:I'm not going to laugh at you that you're wrong I'm just going to continue to feel bad that so-called socialists are actually patriotic americans who are always willing to give uncle sam the benefit of the doubt while millions of children are screaming and dying
What do millions of screaming dying children have to do with the hypothetical US mercenary army
Lessons posted:Crow posted:yeah there's alot of 'anonymous sources' saying that NATO special forces are already operating inthe country, including the Stratfor leaks, but of course that is completely uncharacteristic of American empire right? They just have global special forces strike teams, operate in the whole of Africa, have historically carried out military or covert actions in virtually every country, but all the 'anonymous reports' (too bad the department of defense won't hold a press conference about their covert programs of destabilization and coup, right?) aren't credible or likely. Well, there just isn't anything to back it up, for an idiot, at the fucking circus
What I see here is one 2-year-old report from a pretend spy magazine that an unspecified number of special forces were in Syria, not a lot of sources, and then stuff that happened in other countries. And it's still nothing on the scale you're talking about, not to mention that Hezbollah has fighters in Syria probably on Iran's direction and this is definitely not an Iranian invasion.
calling stratfor a pretend spy magazine is fucking stupid, come on
discipline posted:I'm not going to laugh at you that you're wrong
I am
Crow posted:I dunno, i just feel like there's no evidence to suggest that this is the MO of my brave fatherland <<goosesteps over cartoonishly large graveyard>>
This isn't about MOs, of course the US is capable of anything. But if you're saying the US is coordinating foreign intervention in Syria in a way that amounts to invasion you're going to have to prove it, it's not sufficient to say the US so they must be doing the worst thing possible.
jools posted:Lessons posted:Crow posted:yeah there's alot of 'anonymous sources' saying that NATO special forces are already operating inthe country, including the Stratfor leaks, but of course that is completely uncharacteristic of American empire right? They just have global special forces strike teams, operate in the whole of Africa, have historically carried out military or covert actions in virtually every country, but all the 'anonymous reports' (too bad the department of defense won't hold a press conference about their covert programs of destabilization and coup, right?) aren't credible or likely. Well, there just isn't anything to back it up, for an idiot, at the fucking circus
What I see here is one 2-year-old report from a pretend spy magazine that an unspecified number of special forces were in Syria, not a lot of sources, and then stuff that happened in other countries. And it's still nothing on the scale you're talking about, not to mention that Hezbollah has fighters in Syria probably on Iran's direction and this is definitely not an Iranian invasion.
calling stratfor a pretend spy magazine is fucking stupid, come on
Is it more or less stupid than saying the US is invading Syria
jools posted:Lessons posted:Crow posted:yeah there's alot of 'anonymous sources' saying that NATO special forces are already operating inthe country, including the Stratfor leaks, but of course that is completely uncharacteristic of American empire right? They just have global special forces strike teams, operate in the whole of Africa, have historically carried out military or covert actions in virtually every country, but all the 'anonymous reports' (too bad the department of defense won't hold a press conference about their covert programs of destabilization and coup, right?) aren't credible or likely. Well, there just isn't anything to back it up, for an idiot, at the fucking circus
What I see here is one 2-year-old report from a pretend spy magazine that an unspecified number of special forces were in Syria, not a lot of sources, and then stuff that happened in other countries. And it's still nothing on the scale you're talking about, not to mention that Hezbollah has fighters in Syria probably on Iran's direction and this is definitely not an Iranian invasion.
calling stratfor a pretend spy magazine is fucking stupid, come on
Actually the american military are goo goo ga ga babies. Check out more of my Content at @RahowaRNerdMemes. Subscribe, like, and heck, comment or tag.
Lessons posted:jools posted:Lessons posted:Crow posted:yeah there's alot of 'anonymous sources' saying that NATO special forces are already operating inthe country, including the Stratfor leaks, but of course that is completely uncharacteristic of American empire right? They just have global special forces strike teams, operate in the whole of Africa, have historically carried out military or covert actions in virtually every country, but all the 'anonymous reports' (too bad the department of defense won't hold a press conference about their covert programs of destabilization and coup, right?) aren't credible or likely. Well, there just isn't anything to back it up, for an idiot, at the fucking circus
What I see here is one 2-year-old report from a pretend spy magazine that an unspecified number of special forces were in Syria, not a lot of sources, and then stuff that happened in other countries. And it's still nothing on the scale you're talking about, not to mention that Hezbollah has fighters in Syria probably on Iran's direction and this is definitely not an Iranian invasion.
calling stratfor a pretend spy magazine is fucking stupid, come on
Is it more or less stupid than saying the US is invading Syria
oh hhaha this is about your ego. Got it.
discipline posted:Lessons posted:discipline posted:
I'm not going to laugh at you that you're wrong I'm just going to continue to feel bad that so-called socialists are actually patriotic americans who are always willing to give uncle sam the benefit of the doubt while millions of children are screaming and dying
What do millions of screaming dying children have to do with the hypothetical US mercenary armyWe've given you evidence and precedence and you're all well wait here, hang on a second, hold your horses, I want to hear what General Powell is saying on TV about uranium, he is at the United Nations and is a very important man
I don't care about the media or General Powell, I care about evidence. There's evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there's evidence that the Bush administration deliberately lied about it. Otoh there's no evidence that AIDS is a man-made plague (even though the US isn't above doing something like that) so I'm not going to believe that.
discipline posted:Lessons posted:jools posted:
Lessons posted:
Crow posted:
yeah there's alot of 'anonymous sources' saying that NATO special forces are already operating inthe country, including the Stratfor leaks, but of course that is completely uncharacteristic of American empire right? They just have global special forces strike teams, operate in the whole of Africa, have historically carried out military or covert actions in virtually every country, but all the 'anonymous reports' (too bad the department of defense won't hold a press conference about their covert programs of destabilization and coup, right?) aren't credible or likely. Well, there just isn't anything to back it up, for an idiot, at the fucking circus
What I see here is one 2-year-old report from a pretend spy magazine that an unspecified number of special forces were in Syria, not a lot of sources, and then stuff that happened in other countries. And it's still nothing on the scale you're talking about, not to mention that Hezbollah has fighters in Syria probably on Iran's direction and this is definitely not an Iranian invasion.
calling stratfor a pretend spy magazine is fucking stupid, come on
Is it more or less stupid than saying the US is invading Syriauh, didn't I use the word smarmy on the first page? haha yes I did! and here we are
You're accusing other people of not caring about the millions of dying children while accusing other people of being smarmy
Lessons posted:Crow posted:I dunno, i just feel like there's no evidence to suggest that this is the MO of my brave fatherland <<goosesteps over cartoonishly large graveyard>>
This isn't about MOs, of course the US is capable of anything. But if you're saying the US is coordinating foreign intervention in Syria in a way that amounts to invasion you're going to have to prove it, it's not sufficient to say the US so they must be doing the worst thing possible.
why is "invasion" your sine qua non? why not "special forces training opposition groups" or "sending arms" or any number of things? i think it's entirely reasonable to react like this to any exercise of US power you can care to think of tbh, given the massive bloody history of it all.
like if you're admitting that you'd support assad (against america) if he was invaded (presumably to achieve the same objectives that the US are attempting to or are actually achieving right now - their content aside), then why is that your red line, rather than anything else? i honestly don't understand not really caring at all about anything the US is doing because it's CIA rats and special forces snakes, not some marine in a chopper yelling "GET SOME" and mowing down kids etc