Meanwhile, In Syria

[Countdown]

Raygun said:

I'm not sorry, I don't like terrorist or anti-American bullst.

You're like some redneck cliche.

Whilst it may be "anti-American" to point out that the US behaves far worse than countries it labels as "Terrorists" it isn't bullst. Iran fought a 10-year war against Saddam Hussein, during which Saddam was supplied with shedloads of cash by other Middle eastern dictatorships and shedloads of weaponry by various western countries.But you're right, it's the Iranians who are terrorists....

[Sa Calobra]

Raygun said:

I'm not sorry, I don't like terrorist or anti-American bullst.

Stop reading/watching mainstream media news out put.

Look at history, the stats. How successful 'intervention' is in the middle east. The companies that follow in the wake hoovering up the aid and contracts.

The civilian/population deaths.

Arab countries don't tend to have voted democracy. Noticed that? Some are very successful and beautiful countries.

Look at the countries that have a family as the head of the state, family employed as MPs staff, prominent politicians married to people whose companies have government contracts. Yes maybe before that person came into the prominent position but still as a minister previously.

Expenses fraud etc etc.

Let's not forget the illegal war where the people mass demonstrated in 2003 but still we were taken to war without a mandate. Look how that turned out.

Try to read ALL news outlets then take a balance between them. We only ever get a small proportion transmitted on the news and that then when repeated can be taken in a distorted view(point).

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

Iran fought a 10-year war against Saddam Hussein,

Otherwise known as 'st v st'

[mko9]

Sa Calobra said:

Intrigued. What's the US success rate in the middle and far east over the past 70yrs?

What is anybodies? Has anyone, including Middle Easterners, had any success in resolving issues in the Middle East since the end of WWII?

[Sa Calobra]

There can be be alot more stability without external interference.

[grumbledoak]

I don't think any nation in the Middle East is capable of killing as many people as the US already have, let alone willing.

[Sa Calobra]

Many Syrians have died. The war wouldn't have lasted five years without external influences. It would have ended after 2 no doubt.

Many of the internal players didn't want a democracy.

They all wanted something else.

[BlackLabel]

There's nothing like a war (or a potential end to one in this case) to unite the American political class; from Lindsay Graham to Hillary Clinton to all the other chronic warmongers patriots in DC - the way they're going on you'd have thought someone had just knicked the presents under their Xmas trees. Also it's quite funny that they're demanding congressional approval before any withdrawal yet when it comes to lobbing some missiles over or sending troops to various parts of the world congressional approval is of course optional to the same figures.

[Leonard Stanley]

mko9 said:

Sa Calobra said:

Intrigued. What's the US success rate in the middle and far east over the past 70yrs?

What is anybodies? Has anyone, including Middle Easterners, had any success in resolving issues in the Middle East since the end of WWII?

Putin.

[anonymous-user]

BlackLabel said:

Also it's quite funny that they're demanding congressional approval before any withdrawal yet when it comes to lobbing some missiles over or sending troops to various parts of the world congressional approval is of course optional to the same figures.

Zzzzzzzzzzz

[anonymous-user]

Sa Calobra said:

Arab countries don't tend to have voted democracy.

'voted' 'democracy' swear words to arabs

[Countdown]

Sa Calobra said:

Many Syrians have died. The war wouldn't have lasted five years without external influences. It would have ended after 2 no doubt.

Many of the internal players didn't want a democracy.

They all wanted something else.

Indeed. Their own flavour of dictatorship.

[mko9]

grumbledoak said:

I don't think any nation in the Middle East is capable of killing as many people as the US already have, let alone willing.

Perhaps you should educate yourself then?

[grumbledoak]

mko9 said:

Perhaps you should educate yourself then?

Oh, please educate me.

[anonymous-user]

mko9 said:

grumbledoak said:

I don't think any nation in the Middle East is capable of killing as many people as the US already have, let alone willing.

Perhaps you should educate yourself then?

Well said.

[anonymous-user]

mko9 said:

grumbledoak said:

I don't think any nation in the Middle East is capable of killing as many people as the US already have, let alone willing.

Perhaps you should educate yourself then?

Spot on.

[Countdown]

grumbledoak said:

mko9 said:

Perhaps you should educate yourself then?

Oh, please educate me.

He’s probably referring to Israel.

[grumbledoak]

Countdown said:

He’s probably referring to Israel.

Could Israel kill half a million conventionally? Saudi seem to be trying it in Yemen, but that's by starving them.

[BlackLabel]

The Americans haven't killed half a million civilians - sure they've helped to create an atmosphere where hundreds of thousands have died but the deaths directly caused by them will be a fraction of that. Also some of the studies which have estimated the deaths - for example the famous Lancet one - have overestimated casualties.

[grumbledoak]

BlackLabel said:

The Americans haven't killed half a million civilians - sure they've helped to create an atmosphere where hundreds of thousands have died but the deaths directly caused by them will be a fraction of that. Also some of the studies which have estimated the deaths - for example the famous Lancet one - have overestimated casualties.

Looks like 200,000 in Iraq alone
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documen...

The Syrian "civil" war numbers are even larger but less direct,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/22/u-n-envoy-rev...

Sure, there's no trusting any source, but it's in that ballpark.