Creeping towards World War Three

[tupac chopra]

If you want to see real mass murder of civilians look at what happens when Moscow gets involved.

Loren,

As my Gran used to say, "You can't make an omelette without murdering 40 million people."

A.

Killing people is fun isn't it?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-...burned-down-every-town-in-north-korea/5587649

The crimes committed by the US against the people of Korea in the course of the Korean War but also in its aftermath are unprecedented in modern history.
“We Killed Off – What – Twenty Percent of the Population. We Burned Down every Town in North Korea…”
The above quotation is from General Curtis Lemay, who coordinated the bombing campaign (1950-53)
Who is a Threat to Global Security? The US or the DPRK?
The public perception of the entire population of North Korea is that the US is a threat to their national security.
During the Korean War, the DPRK lost more than 25% of its population.
The population of North Korea was of the order of 8-9 million in 1950 prior the Korean War. US sources acknowledge 1.55 million civilian deaths in North Korea, 215,000 combat deaths. MIA/POW 120,000, 300,000 combat troops wounded. What we are dealing with are crimes of genocide under international law. (Article 2 of the “Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”(1948))
In contrast, during the Second World War, the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the US lost 0.32%.
Casually ignored by the Western media and the international community, the US has actively deployed nuclear weapons targeted at North Korea for more than half a century in violation of article 13b) of the 1953 Armistice agreement.
Video: Michel Chossudovsky’s Presentation to the Japanese Foreign Correspondent’s Club on US Aggression against the People of Korea, Tokyo, August 1, 2013

 

[funinspace]

Except that Assad and his political groupies are Alawite Muslim, which is a sub-sect of Shia. I'm not suggesting this is purely a religious themed fuster cluck, but it certainly is a component. There certainly is also a political aspect between Iran and SA and its little piglets.

Much less than you might think, though. The Syrian Arab Army is majority Sunni, for example. Fundamentally, Assad represents secular Arab nationalism.

At the beginnings of the war, I'm talking 2014, you might have been able to make the case that this was a Nationalist vs Republican internal Syrian civil war. However, before the year was over, that was pretty much not true. Any secular, democratic elements to the resistance have by now been completely replaced by radical Sunni Islamists funded by the Gulf Arab states and the US. The US has essentially been arming Al Qaeda for a while.

First I should note, that my point was that religious divisions were a component, not the primary driver. I'm not sure how anyone could quantify the various influences. With that said, I do think that the Saudi and the piglets motivations were very influenced by Syria being run by a Shiite-Alawite sect. Additionally, it seems that Shiite Hezbollah and Iranian irregulars have participated in a significant portion of the heavy fighting. Ironically, Iran is probably one of the more tolerant governments in the ME regarding Islamic sect minorities.

Assuming the below is at leas somewhat valid, it appears that a larger majority of Sunni's defected as compared to the Alawite minority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

In the early days of their existence, 90% of the FSA consisted of Sunni Muslims,[29] a small minority were (Shia) Alawites[29] Druze[30] Christians, Kurds and Palestinians.[31] (Palestinian, however, is more of a geographical description, since people who identify as Palestinian consist of Sunni, Shia, Druze, Christian, etc.)

A good article overall...but it is also clear that Assad is at least tolerated by a large portion of his Sunni population as well.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/05/assads-sunni-foot-soldiers-syria/

The Alaby family hails from the Syrian civil war’s least understood demographic: fence-sitting Sunnis who eschewed the uprising but aren’t entirely trusted by the government. They’re trapped between religious extremists and a government that often treats them as second-class citizens. The Alaby brothers consider themselves defenders not of Bashar al-Assad’s government but rather of a neighborhood and a Damascene way of life, a society that welcomes anyone — secular, atheist, or a member of any faith. But for members of the predominantly Sunni armed opposition, they are traitors — co-religionists who have taken up arms to defend the Alawite-dominated government.

War is Peace. We've always been at war with EastAsia and all that...

Sure seems like it...

The above leaves out the Kurds, who are a genuinely democratic, secular, liberal faction. I doubt the powers that be will be able to deny them a State this time, seeing as they have essentially forged it for themselves from the fires of war. But, it wouldn't surprise me if the US found a way to screw the Kurds yet again.

Yup to much of that. Another complicated puzzle piece. The only thing that unites Turkey, Iran, and Iraq is the disliking of the idea of a formal Kurdish state. Not that the Iraqi rump state has much say in the matter any more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you want to see real mass murder of civilians look at what happens when Moscow gets involved.

You are looking at things that happened generations ago and comparing it to what America is doing today.

Afghanistan wasn't generations ago.

You guys carpet bombed North Korea and killed up to 20% of the population but it wasn't a full on war?

You're moving the goalposts. The question was whether proxy wars evolved into world wars. Korea didn't. Russia was very careful when engaging our troops to pretend they were North Koreans instead, specifically to avoid any exchange of fire between US and Russian forces. Both sides have been very careful about this in all the proxy wars and non-wars. (For example, any recon plane sent over the other's territory is unarmed.)

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Before World War One, it had never happened that a chain of entangling alliances would create a domino effect that would lead to World War.

Before World War Two, it had never happened that appeasement and then unexpectedly standing firm would lead to World War.

So what was that you were saying about how proxy wars had never escalated into world wars?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Before World War One, it had never happened that a chain of entangling alliances would create a domino effect that would lead to World War.

Before World War Two, it had never happened that appeasement and then unexpectedly standing firm would lead to World War.

So what was that you were saying about how proxy wars had never escalated into world wars?

Because Russia only cares about the guy in charge of Syria giving them access to their warm water port on the Mediterranean. Said Syrian leader isn't going to change his mind because doing so will lead to a Russian epiphany which will see the ouster of him and a replacement of a pro-Russia leader.

The only violence that can lead to fisticuffs of note is between Russian and American militaries. Russian doesn't give a flip about any one in the Syrian military, as long as their goal of keeping access to the port is successful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren,

As my Gran used to say, "You can't make an omelette without murdering 40 million people."

A.

Killing people is fun isn't it?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-...burned-down-every-town-in-north-korea/5587649

Not a credible site.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Before World War One, it had never happened that a chain of entangling alliances would create a domino effect that would lead to World War.

Before World War Two, it had never happened that appeasement and then unexpectedly standing firm would lead to World War.

So what was that you were saying about how proxy wars had never escalated into world wars?

Because Russia only cares about the guy in charge of Syria giving them access to their warm water port on the Mediterranean. Said Syrian leader isn't going to change his mind because doing so will lead to a Russian epiphany which will see the ouster of him and a replacement of a pro-Russia leader.

The only violence that can lead to fisticuffs of note is between Russian and American militaries. Russian doesn't give a flip about any one in the Syrian military, as long as their goal of keeping access to the port is successful.

Someone bump Jimmy, he's skipping.

No politician cares about any soldier unless it looks good to do so in front of the backers or constituents. But as you noted, Russia has an interested in a Mediterranean Sea port. That means Russia has an interest in the Syrian government. That means Russia has an interest in the Syrian military. So even though you think Russia doesn't care if the entire Syrian military gets slaughtered, due to their interest in the port they therefore have an interest in the soldiers.

Syria has no reason to change his mind about working with the Russians, not because of some epiphany and ouster but because of the US.

If you were a military commander you would be an awful one because of your complete disregard for allied forces.

Colonel Advisor: So here is the battle plan. We attack the enemy at point A, while our allies attack at point B and C. We need to supply air support for our first ally and supplies for our second ally otherwise they cannot attack. If points A, B, and C are attacked at the same time then we are sure to win.
General Jimmy: So your plan is that we attack at point A.
Colonel: Also the allies.
Jimmy: They aren't our troops so I don't give a flip about them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because Russia only cares about the guy in charge of Syria giving them access to their warm water port on the Mediterranean. Said Syrian leader isn't going to change his mind because doing so will lead to a Russian epiphany which will see the ouster of him and a replacement of a pro-Russia leader.

The only violence that can lead to fisticuffs of note is between Russian and American militaries. Russian doesn't give a flip about any one in the Syrian military, as long as their goal of keeping access to the port is successful.

Someone bump Jimmy, he's skipping.

No politician cares about any soldier unless it looks good to do so in front of the backers or constituents. But as you noted, Russia has an interested in a Mediterranean Sea port. That means Russia has an interest in the Syrian government. That means Russia has an interest in the Syrian military. So even though you think Russia doesn't care if the entire Syrian military gets slaughtered, due to their interest in the port they therefore have an interest in the soldiers.

I love playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon!

If you were a military commander you would be an awful one because of your complete disregard for allied forces.

Colonel Advisor: So here is the battle plan. We attack the enemy at point A, while our allies attack at point B and C. We need to supply air support for our first ally and supplies for our second ally otherwise they cannot attack. If points A, B, and C are attacked at the same time then we are sure to win.
General Jimmy: So your plan is that we attack at point A.
Colonel: Also the allies.
Jimmy: They aren't our troops so I don't give a flip about them.

When did I become Russia?

 

[untermensche]

Before World War One, it had never happened that a chain of entangling alliances would create a domino effect that would lead to World War.

Before World War Two, it had never happened that appeasement and then unexpectedly standing firm would lead to World War.

So what was that you were saying about how proxy wars had never escalated into world wars?

So the current president is playing with fire?

Some chimp in a suit is playing with the lives of everyone?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I love playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon!

It is sad that is all you got from that. You seem to have difficulty understanding motivations.

When did I become Russia?

You think that is what I wrote? Even worse. I'm pointing you have no grasp of strategy with regards to allies. You think nothing like Russian military leadership. You think much more like US military leadership.

So the current president is playing with fire?

Just like his predecessors, yes.

 

[laughing dog]

If it is a choice between creeping towards WW3 or rushing towards WW3, I prefer the creeping option. So, I don't see a problem here at all.

 

[barbos]

Before World War One, it had never happened that a chain of entangling alliances would create a domino effect that would lead to World War.

Before World War Two, it had never happened that appeasement and then unexpectedly standing firm would lead to World War.

So what was that you were saying about how proxy wars had never escalated into world wars?

Because Russia only cares about the guy in charge of Syria giving them access to their warm water port on the Mediterranean. Said Syrian leader isn't going to change his mind because doing so will lead to a Russian epiphany which will see the ouster of him and a replacement of a pro-Russia leader.

The only violence that can lead to fisticuffs of note is between Russian and American militaries. Russian doesn't give a flip about any one in the Syrian military, as long as their goal of keeping access to the port is successful.

Will you ever stop with that stupid port? The real reason why Putin decided to go to Syria is because he saw an opportunity to get some relatively free credit there. He saw US making total mess there and thought that if he comes and sorts that out he would be considered a good guy and an maybe West would forget about Crimea. Then there is bunch of other legitimate reasons - russian nationals joining the ISIS, russian millitary wanting to test their toys, and yes, that stupid port as a bonus. If anything it's more likely US attempt to squeeze Russia out of everywhere caused US to overthrow secular Syrian government for an international gang of psychopaths called ISIS.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Well, the White House is now issuing Syria a warning about another possible chemical attack. The problem is, it's good to be skeptical at the best of times, but with Trump in charge? I'd like to see some kind of proof before things get out of hand.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because Russia only cares about the guy in charge of Syria giving them access to their warm water port on the Mediterranean. Said Syrian leader isn't going to change his mind because doing so will lead to a Russian epiphany which will see the ouster of him and a replacement of a pro-Russia leader.

The only violence that can lead to fisticuffs of note is between Russian and American militaries. Russian doesn't give a flip about any one in the Syrian military, as long as their goal of keeping access to the port is successful.

Will you ever stop with that stupid port? The real reason why Putin decided to go to Syria is because he saw an opportunity to get some relatively free credit there. He saw US making total mess there and thought that if he comes and sorts that out he would be considered a good guy and an maybe West would forget about Crimea.

Poor ole misunderstood Putin.

Then there is bunch of other legitimate reasons - russian nationals joining the ISIS, russian millitary wanting to test their toys, and yes, that stupid port as a bonus. If anything it's more likely US attempt to squeeze Russia out of everywhere caused US to overthrow secular Syrian government for an international gang of psychopaths called ISIS.

You may not have noticed, but the US hasn't tried too hard to overthrow Assad. If you want to see what the US overthrowing (or trying to support the overthrowing) of a regime looks like, check out Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Syria is a full blown mess, with no good outcomes possible, other than Assad steps down eventually and replaced with another pro-Russia leader. Trump's involvement with Syria seems almost impulsive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is sad that is all you got from that. You seem to have difficulty understanding motivations.

Putin is motivated by a warm water port.

When did I become Russia?

You think that is what I wrote? Even worse. I'm pointing you have no grasp of strategy with regards to allies.

You seriously have a problem being able to grasp what is a personal opinion and what a characterization of someone else is. For instance:
A) I don't think shooting down allies is a good idea
B) I don't think Russia gives a fuck about the Syrian military

 

[barbos]

Will you ever stop with that stupid port? The real reason why Putin decided to go to Syria is because he saw an opportunity to get some relatively free credit there. He saw US making total mess there and thought that if he comes and sorts that out he would be considered a good guy and an maybe West would forget about Crimea.

Poor ole misunderstood Putin.

What I said is the truth.

Then there is bunch of other legitimate reasons - russian nationals joining the ISIS, russian millitary wanting to test their toys, and yes, that stupid port as a bonus. If anything it's more likely US attempt to squeeze Russia out of everywhere caused US to overthrow secular Syrian government for an international gang of psychopaths called ISIS.

You may not have noticed, but the US hasn't tried too hard to overthrow Assad.

US had tried sufficiently hard. Problem is, Assad survived and then Russia came in which made pretty much impossible for US to try harder.

If you want to see what the US overthrowing (or trying to support the overthrowing) of a regime looks like, check out Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

And Ukraine.

Syria is a full blown mess, with no good outcomes possible,

Thanks to US and its ME "friends"

other than Assad steps down eventually and replaced with another pro-Russia leader. Trump's involvement with Syria seems almost impulsive.

I find it indicative of US intentions that you qualify it with "pro-Russia". Looks almost as if US policy is of overthrowing every pro-russian leader.