Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons

anatta said:
realpolitik also says Russia is in the driver's seat. what we want is marginal, because we have no viable partners on the ground ( why Trump just ended the policy of arming the "non-Islamic" rebels).

Talking to Putin gave us a small ceasefire.
Click to expand...

The war would have been LONG over if not for Russia intervening. And if Putin can easily cause a ceasefire, you have to wonder why he hasn't done so until Trump talked to him.
 
Darth Omar said:
We don't need to invade Syria to affect the outcome there.

I asked a simple question and the best you could say was that someone would form a new government when Assad is gone.

The 'someone' would be radical Islamists if past experience is any indicator, at all.
Click to expand...

Assad released ISIS fighters INTO the fight as a method of worseng the battlefield conditions for the opposition. This is a proven fact.

You can't be both non-interventionist, pro-Russian interventionist, and expect to be taken seriously when you claim to care about the outcome of the civil war.
 
blackascoal said:
I repeat, you didn't jump on the Putin bandwagon until you joined Team Trump .. and you continue to ignore Putin's LONG history of terror and murder. You gladly speak to the 'horrors' of Hillary Clinton that have no comparison to the absolute terror of Putin, that you won't talk about nor consider.

I recognize this debate is going nowhere between us .. but you should consider that you're not an geopolitical analyst nor Russian expert, and most importantly, what if you're wrong.

You're supporting an ex-KGB agent and a brutal murderer who rules Raggedy Russia with an iron hand .. and who remains an enemy of your own country.
Click to expand...
what's an expert? where do I go to school to become a certified Russian expert? I am fluent on trans-national engagement, and have studied Russia, but i claim no expertise.

don't forget it's the "experts" that brought us Libya/Iraq and Cold War 2..so color me unimpressed there.
( read Russia Behind the Headlines https://www.rbth.com/ for a go to day by day.)

More importantly Why are you ( and not just you) quite willing to take up the neo-con cause without question
when you KNOW it's bankrupt and leads to nothing but blow back and war?

It's like you have amnesia, and I keep trying to wake you up from the hysterical crowd

I do continuous studies BAC. I put much more time into foreign policy, then Kabuki domestic politics
I was outraged against Putin after Crimea, but started to read about NATO expansion.(That was a real eye opener)
I'm confident that Putin -whatever else he is -is a rational state actor, and can be dealt with.

We've seen him as a master geopolitical chess player. Not engaging him leaves him able to run wild across the board
Better to go the route of engagement and future detente'
 
Thing1 said:
Too much generalization on this thread.

For starters, Congressional Democrats are not "the left," and they weren't in 2003 or for Libya. They're mostly expedient corporate politicians who are afraid of not "looking tough."

The anti-war left is one of the most principled sub-groups in American politics. Every anti-war lefty I know personally has been anti-war and anti-conflict their whole life, whether a Republican or Democrat was President. I always say that I have been against every single war except Afghanistan, and I regret my support for that one. I have a friend w/ a bumper sticker that says "I'm even against the next war." Hillary lost the election in large part because anti-war lefties couldn't stomach her Iraq vote.

But let's also not impugn the current crop of Congressional Democrats without any foundation. Because they want Russia investigated, they're now war mongers who are yearning for Cold War II? Give me a flippin' break. Let me know when some of them start calling for invasion or war.

And last, this one goes out to anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq and criticized the left in 2003 for their opposition: shut up. You have not a single leg to stand on when it comes to this topic. You are a hypocrite and partisan, and your support of conflict shifts w/ the political winds & depending on who is in power. Beyond that, the Iraq War is one you do not get a mulligan on. It was an historically epic blunder, and the left warned you about the consequences. We were right, you were wrong. You should permanently recuse yourself from any discussion on foreign policy.
Click to expand...

When liberals shut up on healthcare I'll shut up on the neocon/liberal alliance.
 
Amadeus said:
The war would have been LONG over if not for Russia intervening. And if Putin can easily cause a ceasefire, you have to wonder why he hasn't done so until Trump talked to him.
Click to expand...
show me ANY scenario where Syria would "be over with" by now without Russian intervention.

The FSA got close to Damascus, but couldn't break thru. That the history of the Syrian Civil war.
So many players able to make small gains here and there, but not finish off the job.

Russian intervention took Assad's forces able to reclaim Homs and Aleppo ,and w/nw Syria,
but assad beat back the Damascus push by itself..

anyways..WTF difference does it make?
You play the hand that's on the table, and not cling to moves you should have made

Putin in cooperation with the USA and JORDAN ( where the USA controls it's sorties) made the ceasefire possible
 
Sailor said:
So, ah, what is the great country of Canada doing about Russian and Putin? Care to put you money wear your wimpy, do nothing wannabe Canadian ass is?
Click to expand...
I'm not Amedeus, but I follow Canadian politics, my son in law is Canadian.
They are still applying pressure, along with NATO. They have troops in Latvia. They are also trying to gear up for the cyber attacks they know are coming.
 
Darth Omar said:
We don't need to invade Syria to affect the outcome there.
I asked a simple question and the best you could say was that someone would form a new government when Assad is gone.
The 'someone' would be radical Islamists if past experience is any indicator, at all.
Click to expand...
nobody knows anything about what will happen in Syria long term.
But there is a path forward,and it's letting Russia set the pace since they have the strong hand.
w can work to help keep Syria whole ( since even Assad cannot govern the entire country)
or split it up.
We dont have the ability to make events happen, but we can influence them
 
Thing1 said:
Too much generalization on this thread.

For starters, Congressional Democrats are not "the left," and they weren't in 2003 or for Libya. They're mostly expedient corporate politicians who are afraid of not "looking tough."

The anti-war left is one of the most principled sub-groups in American politics. Every anti-war lefty I know personally has been anti-war and anti-conflict their whole life, whether a Republican or Democrat was President. I always say that I have been against every single war except Afghanistan, and I regret my support for that one. I have a friend w/ a bumper sticker that says "I'm even against the next war." Hillary lost the election in large part because anti-war lefties couldn't stomach her Iraq vote.

But let's also not impugn the current crop of Congressional Democrats without any foundation. Because they want Russia investigated, they're now war mongers who are yearning for Cold War II? Give me a flippin' break. Let me know when some of them start calling for invasion or war.

And last, this one goes out to anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq and criticized the left in 2003 for their opposition: shut up. You have not a single leg to stand on when it comes to this topic. You are a hypocrite and partisan, and your support of conflict shifts w/ the political winds & depending on who is in power. Beyond that, the Iraq War is one you do not get a mulligan on. It was an historically epic blunder, and the left warned you about the consequences. We were right, you were wrong. You should permanently recuse yourself from any discussion on foreign policy.
Click to expand...
Ovation!
 
Thing1 said:
Iraq cost lives. Obamacare SAVED lives, and gave millions of uninsured much better access to decent healthcare.

That kind of comparison really shows how righties think.
Click to expand...

Iraq was a team effort, Mr. Sanctimonious Partisan.

To get back on point, didn't we learn anything in Iraq? Is Ralph Peters right that the Kurds would waltz into Syria and take over after Assad is gone.

Why isn't the 'anti-war' left cheering Trump for taking support away from the Syrian rebels/terrorists WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO TOPPLE A MIDDLE EAST SECULAR GOVERNMENT?

I'll tell you why. The left is blinded by their hatred for Trump. And they're blinded by an irrational fear of Russia.
 
Covfefe said:
I'm not Amedeus, but I follow Canadian politics, my son in law is Canadian.
They are still applying pressure, along with NATO. They have troops in Latvia. They are also trying to gear up for the cyber attacks they know are coming.
Click to expand...
Russia would never attack a member of NATO,
which all three nations of the Baltics are. It would be suicide - NATO would overwhelm Russia.
NATO just sent in 3 more batallions to the Baltics. Russia is planning more war games..on it goes.
 
anatta said:
show me ANY scenario where Syria would "be over with" by now without Russian intervention.
Click to expand...

Assad was backed into a corner and on the verge of defeat in 2015, then Putin came along and save his ass and turned the war in his favor.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/syria-losses-east-assad-regime-precarious
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-syrian-military-is-on-the-verge-of-collapse-2015-4

Every reputable military and foreign policy analyst has stated that Russia/Assad has made the ISIS problem exponentially worse, and prolonged the war.
 
Darth Omar said:
Iraq was a team effort, Mr. Sanctimonious Partisan.

To get back on point, didn't we learn anything in Iraq? Is Ralph Peters right that the Kurds would waltz into Syria and take over after Assad is gone.

Why isn't the 'anti-war' left cheering Trump for taking support away from the Syrian rebels/terrorists WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO TOPPLE A MIDDLE EAST SECULAR GOVERNMENT?

I'll tell you why. The left is blinded by their hatred for Trump. And they're blinded by an irrational fear of Russia.
Click to expand...
yep. and the neocons are moving into the Democratic MS because the Dems never recovered from the failed Russian reset.
They failed to condemn Libya -to this day Hillary stands behind her "smart power"
They prefer Russiaphobia to go after Trump,and they internalize the associated jingoism's byproducts.

They have even aligned with John McCain, who wants to bomb everyone..

PS good point on Assad -Libya revisited?

Is Ralph Peters right that the Kurds would waltz into Syria and take over after Assad is gone.
Click to expand...
he's an ignorant fuckstick
 
Last edited:
Amadeus said:
Assad was backed into a corner and on the verge of defeat in 2015, then Putin came along and save his ass and turned the war in his favor.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/syria-losses-east-assad-regime-precarious
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-syrian-military-is-on-the-verge-of-collapse-2015-4

Every reputable military and foreign policy analyst has stated that Russia/Assad has made the ISIS problem exponentially worse, and prolonged the war.
Click to expand...
no. the gains in Aleppo/Deraa were an over-extension. They never threatened Damascus itself.
Analysts say the rapid defeats may be a sign that the regime is no longer willing to hold territory outside its western strongholds and is focusing instead on retrenching in the west, in a stretch of land that includes its coastal Alawite heartland, Homs, Hama and Damascus, straddling the Qalamoun mountain range on the border with Lebanon, where Hezbollah holds sway.
Click to expand...
 
Amadeus said:
Assad was backed into a corner and on the verge of defeat in 2015, then Putin came along and save his ass and turned the war in his favor.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/syria-losses-east-assad-regime-precarious
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-syrian-military-is-on-the-verge-of-collapse-2015-4

Every reputable military and foreign policy analyst has stated that Russia/Assad has made the ISIS problem exponentially worse, and prolonged the war.
Click to expand...

But why would anyone want to remove Assad?

At least France's Macron gets it. Maybe it's why he and Trump get along:

"In an interview with eight European newspapers, French President Emmanuel Macron revealed a major departure from the position of previous French administrations on the six-year war in Syria. He said he would abandon efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who faces an insurgency led by various rebel groups backed by the West, Turkey and Arab Gulf states and jihadist groups such as the Islamic State militant group and Al-Qaeda.

Macron said Assad, who enjoys support from Russia and Iran, was not the enemy of France and that, with Russia’s support, French foreign policy in Syria would focus on targeting jihadist groups, whose supporters have killed hundreds in France."

http://www.newsweek.com/west-need-russia-help-fight-isis-assad-stay-macron-628119
__________

Common sense is a wonderful thing to behold in world leaders.
 
Darth Omar said:
Iraq was a team effort, Mr. Sanctimonious Partisan.
Click to expand...

I would love to have a message board time machine, where we could take this post and let all of the pro-war righties in 2003 know that this is the argument that those same pro-war righties would be making in 2017 about Iraq. Those same pro-war righties who said Democrats were on the "wrong side of history" when Saddam's statue toppled, and said the left were traitors.

"A team effort." Beam me up, Scotty.
 
Thing1 said:
I would love to have a message board time machine, where we could take this post and let all of the pro-war righties in 2003 know that this is the argument that those same pro-war righties would be making in 2017 about Iraq. Those same pro-war righties who said Democrats were on the "wrong side of history" when Saddam's statue toppled, and said the left were traitors.

"A team effort." Beam me up, Scotty.
Click to expand...

Yes, Obama had nothing to do with the fall of Iraq and it being taken over by ISIS.

Yet you fancy yourself a non-partisan. Amazing.
 
Thing1 said:
I would love to have a message board time machine, where we could take this post and let all of the pro-war righties in 2003 know that this is the argument that those same pro-war righties would be making in 2017 about Iraq. Those same pro-war righties who said Democrats were on the "wrong side of history" when Saddam's statue toppled, and said the left were traitors.

"A team effort." Beam me up, Scotty.
Click to expand...
to what purpose? You sound like Cypress who insists a vote for the Iraq war is an immediate disqualifier -yet it was Hillary clinton who voted for Iraq,
and then ALSO pushed for regime change in Libya..

I agree that the neocons need to be shunned - they are/were much more then just Iraq.
They are like John Mccain who wants war with Russia and Iran, and lord knows where else
 
They only thing worse than a neocon is a Putin sympathizer and apologist. At least neocons are on America's side, whereas people like anatta actively promote Russian talking points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top