Turkey claims USA is supporting ISIS

[petemcewan]

Joker,

 

The major players- Turkey and Russia-in this scenario are not known for their respect for

democracy.

[banjodeano]

Joker,

 

The major players- Turkey and Russia-in this scenario are not known for their respect for

democracy.

 

thats quite funny when you actually think about it, so are we in the west known for our respect for democracies in other countries? remind me again how many countries the USA and us have tried to remove or undermine a regime or ruler?

[999tigger]

thats quite funny when you actually think about it, so are we in the west known for our respect for democracies in other countries? remind me again how many countries the USA and us have tried to remove or undermine a regime or ruler?

 

How many of those were democracies?

[Anna B]

Joker,

 

The major players- Turkey and Russia-in this scenario are not known for their respect for

democracy.

 

But they do seem to have successfully negotiated a ceasefire, something the USA and Britain have singularly failed to do in years.

 

Russia's managed it in months.

[petemcewan]

thats quite funny when you actually think about it, so are we in the west known for our respect for democracies in other countries? remind me again how many countries the USA and us have tried to remove or undermine a regime or ruler?

 

I'm well aware of America's interventionist history-one only as to read Noam Chomsky. However, I'm not talking about America or the West. Is it your opinion, that the regime in power in Turkey and Russia are bastions of democracy; and have the democratic interests at heart of other countries or even their own populations ?

[banjodeano]

I'm well aware of America's interventionist history-one only as to read Noam Chomsky. However, I'm not talking about America or the West. Is it your opinion, that the regime in power in Turkey and Russia are bastions of democracy; and have the democratic interests at heart of other countries or even their own populations ?

 

Of course not, but can you say that about us and the usa? do you think we have been going into the middle east and wreaking havoc to liberate people, or to liberate them of oil?

i shall not demonise Russia and Syria, when we are as bad, we have no claim to any moral high ground...and its pretty sad when i have to say that

[999tigger]

But they do seem to have successfully negotiated a ceasefire, something the USA and Britain have singularly failed to do in years.

 

Russia's managed it in months.

 

How lopsided of you Anna (as usual).

 

Try comparing like with like (although I know you never will).

 

Assad and Russia have been active participants in the war. they have troops on the ground and have no problem bombing the opposition (not ISIS) into smithereens. The ceasefire is with them and not ISIS.

 

The USA and UK have been fighting ISIS. They have no troops on the ground. Had they played an equivalent role in Stria then they wold have been bombing Assad and they could have forced him into submission within days.

 

So they cna attack one side, but the allies cannot. Hardly syrpising they have to try and have a ceasefire becayse they have been more or less defeated since the intervention of Russia. the Americans could have easily dont eh same the other way, but they chose not to get involved because there was bo unifrom opposition they felt able to support.

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2016 at 20:51 ----------

 

Of course not, but can you say that about us and the usa? do you think we have been going into the middle east and wreaking havoc to liberate people, or to liberate them of oil?

i shall not demonise Russia and Syria, when we are as bad, we have no claim to any moral high ground...and its pretty sad when i have to say that

 

Where have we gon in to liberate them from oil? Interventions have costs hundreds of billions. Wars are expensive. Countries follow policies which pursue their national interests.

 

Do I think the USA and UK are better than Russia and Assad? Most definitely. The involvement in Syria has been minor, its been about trying to contain ISIS who have been more or less defeated now, largely down to the US and its attritional air campaign. Involvement in the civil war has been minor, although they have assisted the Kurds in attacking ISIS.

[banjodeano]

How lopsided of you Anna (as usual).

 

Try comparing like with like (although I know you never will).

 

Assad and Russia have been active participants in the war. they have troops on the ground and have no problem bombing the opposition (not ISIS) into smithereens. The ceasefire is with them and not ISIS.

 

The USA and UK have been fighting ISIS. They have no troops on the ground. Had they played an equivalent role in Stria then they wold have been bombing Assad and they could have forced him into submission within days.

 

So they cna attack one side, but the allies cannot. Hardly syrpising they have to try and have a ceasefire becayse they have been more or less defeated since the intervention of Russia. the Americans could have easily dont eh same the other way, but they chose not to get involved because there was bo unifrom opposition they felt able to support.

of course they had troops on the ground, its Syria, its their country lol

as for the rebels, you mean the american funded terrorists? the ones that we were funding to overthrow a democratically elected leader...

it is none of our business, we shouldnt be funding people to overthrow governments...oh please, dont tell me you believe in all that "lets help the people" nonesense ?

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2016 at 20:57 ----------

 

How lopsided of you Anna (as usual).

 

Try comparing like with like (although I know you never will).

 

Assad and Russia have been active participants in the war. they have troops on the ground and have no problem bombing the opposition (not ISIS) into smithereens. The ceasefire is with them and not ISIS.

 

The USA and UK have been fighting ISIS. They have no troops on the ground. Had they played an equivalent role in Stria then they wold have been bombing Assad and they could have forced him into submission within days.

 

So they cna attack one side, but the allies cannot. Hardly syrpising they have to try and have a ceasefire becayse they have been more or less defeated since the intervention of Russia. the Americans could have easily dont eh same the other way, but they chose not to get involved because there was bo unifrom opposition they felt able to support.

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2016 at 20:51 ----------

 

 

Where have we gon in to liberate them from oil? Interventions have costs hundreds of billions. Wars are expensive. Countries follow policies which pursue their national interests.

 

Do I think the USA and UK are better than Russia and Assad? Most definitely. The involvement in Syria has been minor, its been about trying to contain ISIS who have been more or less defeated now, largely down to the US and its attritional air campaign. Involvement in the civil war has been minor, although they have assisted the Kurds in attacking ISIS.

jeeez, you really dont have a clue, you think us and the Americans are the ones that have been winning any war on isis?

 

you say.....

Where have we gon in to liberate them from oil? Interventions have costs hundreds of billions. Wars are expensive. Countries follow policies which pursue their national interests.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html

The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

Edited December 30, 2016 by banjodeano

[999tigger]

of course they had troops on the ground, its Syria, its their country lol

as for the rebels, you mean the american funded terrorists? the ones that we were funding to overthrow a democratically elected leader...

it is none of our business, we shouldnt be funding people to overthrow governments...oh please, dont tell me you believe in all that "lets help the people" nonesense ?

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2016 at 20:57 ----------

 

jeeez, you really dont have a clue, you think us and the Americans are the ones that have been winning any war on isis?

 

Yes ofc, but there is a difference if you do not as you cannot hold territory and hence it makes a difference to whether or nto you can force a ceasefire. Its not soemthing the US ever tried to do if youdf bothered to follow events. If they had gone for active regime change they would have simply atacked Assad.

 

As for Assad being a democractically elected leader. You mean someone who got into power through a coup off the back of his father and then was elected just by his own supporters without the whole country being able to vote in free and fair elections.

 

Which of the groups have the US been directly funding? The Gulf states probably are.

 

Show us where the UK has been directly funding armed insurgents. We provided the kurds with some old machine guns to fight ISIS with. tell me what else the UK has provided and with credible sources. If they had wanted regime change in Syria and had been prepared for direct involvement they would have just bombed Assad into submission a long time ago. Shot down his air force and destroyed his armoured vehicles.

 

Yes actually, its been long and slow, but all those combat missions have checked the ISIS advance, destroyed large numbers of their armoured vehicles and troops and killed key commanders. It takes time, but thats why they have been losing territory. Most of the Russian attacks have been against the non ISIS rebels.

[banjodeano]

Yes ofc, but there is a difference if you do not as you cannot hold territory and hence it makes a difference to whether or nto you can force a ceasefire. Its not soemthing the US ever tried to do if youdf bothered to follow events. If they had gone for active regime change they would have simply atacked Assad.

 

As for Assad being a democractically elected leader. You mean someone who got into power through a coup off the back of his father and then was elected just by his own supporters without the whole country being able to vote in free and fair elections.

 

Which of the groups have the US been directly funding? The Gulf states probably are.

 

Show us where the UK has been directly funding armed insurgents. We provided the kurds with some old machine guns to fight ISIS with. tell me what else the UK has provided and with credible sources. If they had wanted regime change in Syria and had been prepared for direct involvement they would have just bombed Assad into submission a long time ago. Shot down his air force and destroyed his armoured vehicles.

 

Yes actually, its been long and slow, but all those combat missions have checked the ISIS advance, destroyed large numbers of their armoured vehicles and troops and killed key commanders. It takes time, but thats why they have been losing territory. Most of the Russian attacks have been against the non ISIS rebels.

 

Even IF Assad was not democratically elected, what business is it of ours? seriously, what has it got to do with us?

We have been sending arms to the Saudis, the Saudis have been supplying the rebels/terrorists...this is common knowledge, the US have confirmed this, its no big secret

Why did the usa not take up the offer from the Russians to join forces and fight isis together? why did they refuse?

the russians are fighting non isis rebels you say? seriously mate, you dont have a clue, the west are supplying these rebels who are fighting Assad, and the usa admit they are not exactly sure who they are....of course they know who they are, they just cant say it...its isis...its the ones that they say they are fighting....and they are supplying them with weapons, they are doing the Americans dirty work for them, thats what they always do, get other people to fight for them....and you still think its about democracy ???