The globalists who supported Assad's fall are the bad guys as it'll only spell more death and suffering.
This is something leftists especially don't understand: Democracy DOESN'T work everywhere. In quite a lot of places, having a dictator in charge ensures the peace because they act as the central pillar of power keeping different fractions in line.
With Assad gone they'll quickly try to secure power for each of their seperate groups, devolve into infighting and probably have jihadies executing people openly as a power play. The only good thing is he's still alive so whether it's Iran or even the Saudis, they have a legitimate claim to take back the country if it gets too bad that people openly support his return.
The Regime wants Democracy™ everywhere so it can install puppets with a thin veneer of legitimacy. It has nothing to do with the Will of the People™ or some other happy humanist horseshit.
The precise percentage may be off, but an insane percentage of the population of the country of Georgia is employed by Western-funded "NGOs". 3% IIRC. It's wild.
And then they tried to coup the government because they tried to enact a law like the US FARA, to require these NGOs to disclose from whom they get their funding. We cannot have people finding out what we're doing! Who do they think they are, a sovereign, independent country?
'Democracy' is fake. It's just a legitimizing fig-leaf like the "divine right of kings" was in the early modern era.
Just look at what happened last week in Romania. When their preferred candidate wasn't going to win they just cancelled the election and said Russia did it. Its such a joke.
This is something leftists especially don't understand: Democracy DOESN'T work everywhere.
Does it work anywhere? I used to think it can work in a small ethnically homogenous population, but after the martyrdom of St. Floyd and COVID-19 and decades of refugee worship I saw that no population is immune from pressure to collectively commit national suicide as long as it saves one life and let's us signal that we aren't heckin racist nazis, and that's assuming elections are legitimate which as we saw recently they often aren't. Blame the media or Israel or globalists or whomever for tricking us but that's the situation we live in so in this context democracy can't work. All it does is give fake legitimacy to the regime in charge.
I would argue that democracy doesn't work anywhere for one simple reason: democracy produces politicians, not leaders. These politicians are not accountable to anyone and what inevitably happens is that the democratic country turns into a mafia state that's in bed with corporate and globalist interests.
A dictator or king is far more likely to respect their country's traditions and sovereignty than an elected politician who is only ever interested in political theater while lining their own pockets.
Sure, you could argue that you risk getting a tyrant in autocratic systems. But is avoiding the risk of tyrants worth the risk of almost never getting a true leader that cares for their country?
Even then, it's a lot easier to deal with one tyrant than an entire class of politicians and the bureaucrats under them, and you can mitigate the risk of tyranny by using a monarchical system with family succession. The son of the king can be raised to rule the country wisely, you can't do that with a politician.
And like you said, the public is gullible and unwilling to make any hard decisions or sacrifices most of the time. Closing the border is a hard decision but one that must be made and yet we aren't any closer to it being done because a significant number of Westerners object, despite the obvious damage being done by uncontrolled immigration.
Sure, you could argue that you risk getting a tyrant in autocratic systems. But is avoiding the risk of tyrants worth the risk of almost never getting a true leader that cares for their country?
To quote Mel Gibson's character from The Patriot "Why would I trade one tyrant 2000 miles away for 2000 tyrants one mile away?"
To quote Mel Gibson's character from The Patriot "Why would I trade one tyrant 2000 miles away for 2000 tyrants one mile away?"
Exactly, that's another good point. Let's say you live in a corrupt monarchy where the king keeps using the treasury as his personal debit card. After a certain point he's going to reach a limit where he simply has no more luxuries that he can buy, and things don't deteriorate further.
2000 tyrants are capable of far more evil and corruption than 1 tyrant ever would by himself while being much harder to deal with.
'Democracy' doesn't work because it's not democracy: it's a fig leaf on elite, oligarchical rule. Reading your comment between the lines, it seems that you agree without explicitly stating it.
Question: why is 'dictator' Putin more respectful of his people's wishes than the (lol) democratic European countries?
Democracy in the long term will always devolve into what we have now. It cannot work in a modern context, perhaps in ancient times but even then it has failed and been replaced by other, more autocratic systems.
The problem is simple, how do you keep the oligarhical elites from gaining power and influence over democracy? The answer is that you can't. Simple things like campaign donations pave the way for a lot of oligarhical control. And no, banning things like campaign donations and lobbying is not only impractical, but such bans can be rescinded when the winds change.
Autocrats like Putin are more respectful of their countrymen's wishes due to a simple factor: psychological ownership.
To use an analogy, a house given to a bunch of illegals for free will be trashed while a different house purchased by a hardworking family will be well taken care of for generations. Why is this? The illegals do not see the house as something that they own and are invested in. Even if they own it legally, they do not see it that way in their minds.
The same applies to the democracies vs. autocracies. An autocrat sees the country as "theirs". It's something that they "own" and must take responsibility and care for, just like they would for their house.
A democratic politician on the other hand makes their promises, gets elected and then coasts along while trying to gather as much money as possible. They do not actually feel any responsibility towards their country or fellow countrymen, while at the same time facing no accountability whatsoever.
Western democratic countries represent the globalists and moneyed elites, not the people. That's why we keep seeing all these unpopular policies being forced through no matter which party happens to be in charge today.
Exactly why "conspiracy theorist" was popularized by the CIA to try to destroy the credibility of anyone who knew what was going on re: the Vietnam war and JFK's assassination. What war has US been involved in since that didn't include substantial efforts to manufacturer consent among the electorate?
It seems though Assad brought this upon himself and might not even wanted to stay in power. According to Iranian sources (take it with a big grain of salt) he refused to open another front in the Golan heights (despite Israel regularly bombing Syria), tried to get ever more friendly with Saudi Arabia and pretty much refused/did not ask for any help from Iran. And now the Republic of Syria is no more and Israel swoops in and takes territory while Syria falls into chaos.
So the question is if Assad was part of this plot or if he was just that incompetent that he trusted the wrong people and did not see any of this coming.
That's IF it's believed that siding with Iran more WOULD'VE saved his regime.
Iran and it's proxies have been taking a battering from Israel lately and Russia is drained from their war. Trying to be friendly with the Saudis sounds like trying to save his skin more than anything knowing that Iran doesn't have the cheques that don't bounce to back up it's rhetoric.
Iran and it's proxies have been taking a battering from Israel lately and Russia is drained from their war.
Everyone is drained. The US is drained from supplying Ukraine and Israel. Israel is drained by Gaza, Hezbollah and Yemen.
That's IF it's believed that siding with Iran more WOULD'VE saved his regime.
The way things went nothing Iran or Russia could've done would've saved his regime. That's why I'm asking the question whether or not Assad was in on it or if he was just that grossly incompetent.
Who takes control of Syria after the dust settles remains to be seen. It's going to be a massive shitshow between all the different factions. It's not like the entire thing is a straight Iran vs Israel or US vs Russia proxy conflict.
I don't care. Just stop sending any of my money to anyone in the region to support it. That explicitly includes Israel.
No weapons. No direct monetary aid. No "boots on the ground".
If they want to buy weapons, fine. Cash or equivalent precious commodities only. No credit.
I'm tired of even hearing about it. They were murdering each other long before I was born. They'll still be doing it long after I'm dead. Leave them to it.
This is the correct approach. The Middle East has been one big money pit for the US. Imagine what could have been done with all that money if it was invested internally instead.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
That was a great article, I bookmarked it. Meanwhile, overnight Israel flew over 250 sorties, destroying the entire Syrian Navy, and as much of their ammo depots and air power as possible. Also abandoned is Russian high tech radar, which our IC will want to get their hands on as it could give us a big advantage at a time when Russian R&D isn't advancing so rapidly.
LOTS is happening very quickly, with China not being outdone ...
Surely, you don't think the US government is sending weapons out of charity? They're doing it for their corrupt interests - none of which admittedly helps you or ordinary Americans in any way.
America and UK have been on the wrong side of EVERY war since the first world war. Maybe even before that when the Union won instead of the Confederates.
The UK and France should have backed the Confederates. Imagine a permanently divided American continent just fighting each other instead of creating misery, wars of aggression, coups and civil wars throughout the world.
Also, the US definitely wasn't on the right side of World War I. There was no right side there, only wrong sides, and the problem was that America allowed one wrong side to win overwhelmingly and dictate terms to the defeated party, which were harsh enough to create extreme resentment and not harsh enough to prevent the resurgence of German power. Exactly what Machiavelli said NOT TO DO.
See the second part of my statement: it's not my concern.
The middle east can go blow itself up and regime change all day. It's not something I need to give a shit about. They've been butchering each other since time immemorial and it will never end. I don't see why I should give a shit about anything that happens in that region. There is only downside to us getting involved.
it matters, because Assad falling is another win for the globalist bankers. Syria was one of the few countries left in the world, that was not under their control .
Another win that the globalist bankers let go on for 15 years?
The whole point was for the military powers at play here to reap extra benefits and excuses to be funded, while letting refugees invade Europe and other militias fuck up the region more. The Syrian Civil War has no use anymore with Trump coming back into the fold, who would probably be more forceful this time in shutting down the US' illegal presence there. So they just ended it now, like how the Afghanistan pull-out happened after the Potato got into office. Finally having financial control over Syria is the cherry.
They could have just done a 2003 Iraq, without the two decades of lingering, from the beginning if they really wanted to put the Saud oil pipeline through to connect with Turkey and newly formed Kurdistan, and take the Golan Heights, but intentionally chose not to as it would be too obvious of a power grab.
Even Americans would protest if they tried to force a few million savages down your throats. It's one thing to have 30 million illegals from Latin America. You may not like it, and you're right, but it's not even in the same ballpark as even 3 million Muslims.
In general, I agree with you, but it becomes a foolish position when you intentionally ignore what our enemies are doing. I care because they care. We must discern what they're doing, and why, and if possible, stop them.
The same people screwing us over in Western countries are the same people toppling foreign governments, fomenting wars, funding, training, arming, and leading fake rebels, killing civilians en masse, installing central banks, manipulating foreign markets and trade, money laundering, and so on.
I'd be with you, but if only the Western and Eastern Powers would also but out and let them fight it out themselves. our dumbass leaders have involved us, Which makes it our problem.
it's not a problem that we need to solve, but a problem that we need to exit from.
As far as the awfulness you'd expect from Libya and Syria, Khadhafi and Assad are at the top of 'goodness' of what is realistically possible for those countries.
SO the IDF is deploying in their Golem buffer zone- Sorry, Golan, can't believe my autocorrect changed that. Must be too much D&D.
Aaaand they're running ANOTHER invasion of ANOTHER country. More blood for the blood god, I suppose, but you'd think they'd finished one or two of their wars before starting another one, what, do they have infinite ammo or something? That's a trick question, I know they have infinite ammo, the USA feeds them it as required.
The Syrian Christians and other minorities were safe under Assad. I guarantee you that the Christians will be slaughtered under the new "regime", whatever form it takes. The same thing that happened to Libya, after the Western backed rebel coupe against Gaddafi, will most likely happen in Syria. This will also allow the globalists to loot the treasuries and mineral/gas/oil deposits of Syria without repercussion. And, it will allow Qatar to finally run their oil and gas pipeline into Europe, which Assad stopped, which is likely the reason which spurred on the entire Western backed artificial Syrian civil war.
Oh you don't gotta tell me. Also now that Israel is claiming the Golan Heights from Syria, just announced, which just by coincidence has billions of barrels of oil potential.
Somehow Israel is allowed to expand their borders in 3 directions, but we move heaven and Earth against Russia taking back the Russian speaking portion of UKR
I was just looking into the US attitude towards Pol Pot. The Pol Pot regime was deposed in 1978 by Vietnam. Turns out that into the 1990s, the US continued to recognize Pol Pot as the legitimate leader of Cambodia.
Their justification for this wasn't "we love the Khmer Rouge", but it also makes no sense. They say that a regime imposed by Vietnam is not legitimate. Now, did they make the same argument for all the puppet regimes they installed: Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, etc.?
If the West had no double standards, they wouldn't have any.
In Libya, there were no Christians to slaughter. So instead, they reintroduced slavery, had a 13 year civil war, and caused 'migrants' to be shipped to wreck Europe further.
I think it's a fairly obvious counter attack since clown world has finally given up on the Ukies. Another phase of WW3 begins.
The long term result will likely be that both turn into terrorist states. The enemy has proven that while they can topple countries with color revolutions they can't actually build anything in the ashes, so we're looking at another Libya. While the Ukies have been getting high on their own supply of propaganda for years and will probably start a global campaign of terrorism in retribution for being "betrayed" by the West.
That's not the only reason. Look into why world governments have been trying to topple Assad's government since Obama.
Why did all of this start? The best supported position is that Syria refused to allow Qatar to run an oil and gas pipeline through their country, and into Europe. This is because Syria is Russia's lone ally in the region, and Russia gets much of (most?) of their export money from exporting their own oil and gas into Europe. Thus, Syria, Russia's ally, refused to allow a pipeline to directly compete with their ally's interests.
Oil is one of the biggest foreign markets, and as such, it's extremely corrupt and controlled. This is most likely why Western governments and their "intelligence" agencies, like the CIA and Mossad, were caught funding, training, arming, and leading the Syrian rebel forces, which eventually turned into ISIS. Weirdly, for a supposedly militant Islamic group, never attacked Israel or espoused sentiments contrary to Israel. One time, they accidently attacked Israelis, and they publicly apologized online.
Another indicator for who was running ISIS, was their propaganda videos. Most of the Muslim propaganda and on the ground civilians videos coming out of the Middle East were potato quality vids. However, ISIS somehow, for some reason, totally by cohencidence, used Hollywood level cameras and lighting, for all of their propaganda and execution videos. It was horrific, but indicative of who was running the operation.
The other big indicator for who was behind the anti-Syrian clandestine operations and propaganda, was that one of the Rothschilds used his oil company to slant drill from northern Israel into southern Syria, stealing Syria's oil deposits while Syria had no capability to respond or retaliate, when Syria's artificially created civil war was in full swing.
What's unknown, is why Russia would allow their ally to fall now, of all times? And, why is globohomo focusing on Syria again, now of all times?
What's unknown, is why Russia would allow their ally to fall now, of all times?
My completely uninformed opinion is that Russia and Iran saw that Syria would always need propping up. The dismal state of the army speaks for itself, but let's not forget that the US has been occupying the parts of Syria that have oil in order to ensure that it would remain a failed state.
Yeah, that's what they say. But I really doubt that this is their priority. They wouldn't have undermined Assad for a decade if fighting ISIS was their priority.
Also, pretty much any time military conflict is engaged, there are multiple objectives. If you want to see who did not have a Rothschild majority owned central bank since 1935, just look where US has pointed its guns. I do think that's the single biggest factor. Obama's "JV" comment was kinda telling, but recently it's more plausible that continued US troop presence in Syria was focused on containing ISIS.
That doesn't say anything about potential clandestine operations, successfully hidden from the public.
That's unpossible, he promised HTS won't use terror tactics on civilians, will insure equal rights for all religious expression, and I'm pretty sure he'll walk your dog, too.
That was just the Putin Puppet Cheeto Hitler administration trying to prevent his master Putin from releasing the Kompromat on him by demonizing hard-working rebels.
However, I don't fault Israel for taking over the high ground as a buffer zone. It would be stupid if they did not. Just so long as WE stay the hell out of it, I don't care what they do.
The high ground you're referring to is Mt Hermon, mentioned 13x in the KJV. About half of it was already within Israel's borders, so this isn't the land grab OP tries to make it look like. Israel has been destroying potent weapons in Syria before their enemies can capture them to attack Israel with, this includes an armored convoy of 100 Hezbollah vehicles.
The suddenness of this comparatively drastic shake up in Syria after essentially a stalemate for so long is getting significant media attention.
I agree with you - meh. I'm not quite on board with glassing the whole region, but they are going to continue killing each other and we can't stop that no matter how we try. There are lots of good things that could be done domestically with tax dollars, anything else amounts to theft. We have our own tyrants to topple.
This just reveals that the whole Syria conflict was about Oil, surprise surprise. That was already sort of figured out years ago regarding the Arab-Turk connections, but now pretty much confirmed.
The timeline makes sense as well:
10/7/2023 - Allow large-scale terrorist attack to succeed, or at least aggravate it with fuck-ups.
10/2023-5/2024 - Spend months grieving and playing the victim card, demanding help and retribution, with muslim-jewish clashing in Western nations while Whites get caught up and punished for it.
Summer 2024 - Bulldoze the Gaza open-air prison, using the terror attack and more Hamas attacks as an excuse
Autumn 2024 - Invade Lebanon to weaken Hezbollah, using the terror attack as an excuse, and therefore the last of Assad's support vanishes
12/8/2024 - End Syrian Civil War swiftly by giving some remnants support and take as much disputed land as possible before Trump is President. Syria gets divided up between Kurds, Turks, et al, maybe some of the old country remains. New oil pipelines get formed and all Israel-aligned parties benefit.
Don't think Israel won't try to take over Lebanon though. They probably want the whole Levant.
The globalists who supported Assad's fall are the bad guys as it'll only spell more death and suffering.
This is something leftists especially don't understand: Democracy DOESN'T work everywhere. In quite a lot of places, having a dictator in charge ensures the peace because they act as the central pillar of power keeping different fractions in line.
With Assad gone they'll quickly try to secure power for each of their seperate groups, devolve into infighting and probably have jihadies executing people openly as a power play. The only good thing is he's still alive so whether it's Iran or even the Saudis, they have a legitimate claim to take back the country if it gets too bad that people openly support his return.
The Regime wants Democracy™ everywhere so it can install puppets with a thin veneer of legitimacy. It has nothing to do with the Will of the People™ or some other happy humanist horseshit.
"Democracy" is always the thin veneer that gets the small folk to accept the regime at home. The machine can then be controlled from abroad.
The precise percentage may be off, but an insane percentage of the population of the country of Georgia is employed by Western-funded "NGOs". 3% IIRC. It's wild.
And then they tried to coup the government because they tried to enact a law like the US FARA, to require these NGOs to disclose from whom they get their funding. We cannot have people finding out what we're doing! Who do they think they are, a sovereign, independent country?
'Democracy' is fake. It's just a legitimizing fig-leaf like the "divine right of kings" was in the early modern era.
Well the probably don't have a lot of other jobs.
Just look at what happened last week in Romania. When their preferred candidate wasn't going to win they just cancelled the election and said Russia did it. Its such a joke.
Does it work anywhere? I used to think it can work in a small ethnically homogenous population, but after the martyrdom of St. Floyd and COVID-19 and decades of refugee worship I saw that no population is immune from pressure to collectively commit national suicide as long as it saves one life and let's us signal that we aren't heckin racist nazis, and that's assuming elections are legitimate which as we saw recently they often aren't. Blame the media or Israel or globalists or whomever for tricking us but that's the situation we live in so in this context democracy can't work. All it does is give fake legitimacy to the regime in charge.
I would argue that democracy doesn't work anywhere for one simple reason: democracy produces politicians, not leaders. These politicians are not accountable to anyone and what inevitably happens is that the democratic country turns into a mafia state that's in bed with corporate and globalist interests.
A dictator or king is far more likely to respect their country's traditions and sovereignty than an elected politician who is only ever interested in political theater while lining their own pockets.
Sure, you could argue that you risk getting a tyrant in autocratic systems. But is avoiding the risk of tyrants worth the risk of almost never getting a true leader that cares for their country?
Even then, it's a lot easier to deal with one tyrant than an entire class of politicians and the bureaucrats under them, and you can mitigate the risk of tyranny by using a monarchical system with family succession. The son of the king can be raised to rule the country wisely, you can't do that with a politician.
And like you said, the public is gullible and unwilling to make any hard decisions or sacrifices most of the time. Closing the border is a hard decision but one that must be made and yet we aren't any closer to it being done because a significant number of Westerners object, despite the obvious damage being done by uncontrolled immigration.
To quote Mel Gibson's character from The Patriot "Why would I trade one tyrant 2000 miles away for 2000 tyrants one mile away?"
Exactly, that's another good point. Let's say you live in a corrupt monarchy where the king keeps using the treasury as his personal debit card. After a certain point he's going to reach a limit where he simply has no more luxuries that he can buy, and things don't deteriorate further.
2000 tyrants are capable of far more evil and corruption than 1 tyrant ever would by himself while being much harder to deal with.
'Democracy' doesn't work because it's not democracy: it's a fig leaf on elite, oligarchical rule. Reading your comment between the lines, it seems that you agree without explicitly stating it.
Question: why is 'dictator' Putin more respectful of his people's wishes than the (lol) democratic European countries?
Democracy in the long term will always devolve into what we have now. It cannot work in a modern context, perhaps in ancient times but even then it has failed and been replaced by other, more autocratic systems.
The problem is simple, how do you keep the oligarhical elites from gaining power and influence over democracy? The answer is that you can't. Simple things like campaign donations pave the way for a lot of oligarhical control. And no, banning things like campaign donations and lobbying is not only impractical, but such bans can be rescinded when the winds change.
Autocrats like Putin are more respectful of their countrymen's wishes due to a simple factor: psychological ownership.
To use an analogy, a house given to a bunch of illegals for free will be trashed while a different house purchased by a hardworking family will be well taken care of for generations. Why is this? The illegals do not see the house as something that they own and are invested in. Even if they own it legally, they do not see it that way in their minds.
The same applies to the democracies vs. autocracies. An autocrat sees the country as "theirs". It's something that they "own" and must take responsibility and care for, just like they would for their house.
A democratic politician on the other hand makes their promises, gets elected and then coasts along while trying to gather as much money as possible. They do not actually feel any responsibility towards their country or fellow countrymen, while at the same time facing no accountability whatsoever.
Western democratic countries represent the globalists and moneyed elites, not the people. That's why we keep seeing all these unpopular policies being forced through no matter which party happens to be in charge today.
The illusion of choice keeps people pacified.
CFR enters the chat
That's not the sole reason it was created in 1921, they also put Marxists in charge of academia.
If democracy requires the consent of the governed, then all you need to do is manufacture consent.
Exactly why "conspiracy theorist" was popularized by the CIA to try to destroy the credibility of anyone who knew what was going on re: the Vietnam war and JFK's assassination. What war has US been involved in since that didn't include substantial efforts to manufacturer consent among the electorate?
This is almost a reasonable comment, the main problems are
the US federal government isn't functioning as it's designed to but is way out of whack
US was created specifically to NOT be a democracy, so speaking in those terms gives leftards WAY too much power to begin with.
Never let the left control the language! (SEE: 1984)
Democracy "works" everywhere
The purpose of a system is what it does.
It seems though Assad brought this upon himself and might not even wanted to stay in power. According to Iranian sources (take it with a big grain of salt) he refused to open another front in the Golan heights (despite Israel regularly bombing Syria), tried to get ever more friendly with Saudi Arabia and pretty much refused/did not ask for any help from Iran. And now the Republic of Syria is no more and Israel swoops in and takes territory while Syria falls into chaos.
So the question is if Assad was part of this plot or if he was just that incompetent that he trusted the wrong people and did not see any of this coming.
This is so uninformed as to qualify as disinformation, just like the OP tweet.
The reality is FAR more complex, just like basically everything in the middle east.
Count the recent examples of a tyrant being overthrown and how that affects peace and stability afterwards.
That's IF it's believed that siding with Iran more WOULD'VE saved his regime.
Iran and it's proxies have been taking a battering from Israel lately and Russia is drained from their war. Trying to be friendly with the Saudis sounds like trying to save his skin more than anything knowing that Iran doesn't have the cheques that don't bounce to back up it's rhetoric.
Everyone is drained. The US is drained from supplying Ukraine and Israel. Israel is drained by Gaza, Hezbollah and Yemen.
The way things went nothing Iran or Russia could've done would've saved his regime. That's why I'm asking the question whether or not Assad was in on it or if he was just that grossly incompetent.
Who takes control of Syria after the dust settles remains to be seen. It's going to be a massive shitshow between all the different factions. It's not like the entire thing is a straight Iran vs Israel or US vs Russia proxy conflict.
The US can just print $200 billion like that and European leaders, morons that they are, keep their worthless paper as a reserve currency.
Is this stupidity, or is this treason?
$290B doesn't need to be printed, it's all ones and zeros..
I think that question we can answer quite easily.
I don't care. Just stop sending any of my money to anyone in the region to support it. That explicitly includes Israel.
No weapons. No direct monetary aid. No "boots on the ground".
If they want to buy weapons, fine. Cash or equivalent precious commodities only. No credit.
I'm tired of even hearing about it. They were murdering each other long before I was born. They'll still be doing it long after I'm dead. Leave them to it.
This is the correct approach. The Middle East has been one big money pit for the US. Imagine what could have been done with all that money if it was invested internally instead.
President Eisenhower imagined what could have been done with all that money in the 1950s:
President Eisenhower was a very smart man, and absolutely correct in this case. He was right about the military-industrial complex too.
It's a shame that future generations of politicians learned absolutely nothing from him and only allowed things to get worse.
Yes, it is a shame. We would have been significantly better off today had we taken heed of this idea.
"Learning"
You should know better.
The major work of the most influential Prof of both Clintons lays their agenda bare: Tragedy and Hope.
I like Ike 👍
^ This guy watches campaign ads from the 1950s lol
That was a great article, I bookmarked it. Meanwhile, overnight Israel flew over 250 sorties, destroying the entire Syrian Navy, and as much of their ammo depots and air power as possible. Also abandoned is Russian high tech radar, which our IC will want to get their hands on as it could give us a big advantage at a time when Russian R&D isn't advancing so rapidly.
LOTS is happening very quickly, with China not being outdone ...
Surely, you don't think the US government is sending weapons out of charity? They're doing it for their corrupt interests - none of which admittedly helps you or ordinary Americans in any way.
America and UK have been on the wrong side of EVERY war since the first world war. Maybe even before that when the Union won instead of the Confederates.
The UK and France should have backed the Confederates. Imagine a permanently divided American continent just fighting each other instead of creating misery, wars of aggression, coups and civil wars throughout the world.
Also, the US definitely wasn't on the right side of World War I. There was no right side there, only wrong sides, and the problem was that America allowed one wrong side to win overwhelmingly and dictate terms to the defeated party, which were harsh enough to create extreme resentment and not harsh enough to prevent the resurgence of German power. Exactly what Machiavelli said NOT TO DO.
It's some sandy middle east shithole, everyone involved is the bad guy and it's not my concern.
Assad is not a bad guy and neither was Gaddaffi.
See the second part of my statement: it's not my concern.
The middle east can go blow itself up and regime change all day. It's not something I need to give a shit about. They've been butchering each other since time immemorial and it will never end. I don't see why I should give a shit about anything that happens in that region. There is only downside to us getting involved.
it matters, because Assad falling is another win for the globalist bankers. Syria was one of the few countries left in the world, that was not under their control .
This is probably a bigger reason than the oil pipeline Assad was preventing.
CIA gonna CIA.
Another win that the globalist bankers let go on for 15 years?
The whole point was for the military powers at play here to reap extra benefits and excuses to be funded, while letting refugees invade Europe and other militias fuck up the region more. The Syrian Civil War has no use anymore with Trump coming back into the fold, who would probably be more forceful this time in shutting down the US' illegal presence there. So they just ended it now, like how the Afghanistan pull-out happened after the Potato got into office. Finally having financial control over Syria is the cherry.
They could have just done a 2003 Iraq, without the two decades of lingering, from the beginning if they really wanted to put the Saud oil pipeline through to connect with Turkey and newly formed Kurdistan, and take the Golan Heights, but intentionally chose not to as it would be too obvious of a power grab.
Where do you think the Muslims who used to live on the land Israel is grabbing are going to go? I'll give you a hint: https://scored.co/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17rmJXusOW/the-west-should-welcome-gaza-ref/c
I'll take "what is into the fucking Atlantic Ocean?" for $500 Alex.
We don't get a say in that.
I too like to indulge in fantasies.
The Mediterranean is closer by. And some Syrians are Christians.
Cool, they can be Christians who get dumped in the Mediterranean then.
Other Muslim countries.
Or Europe, that will be good too. You know why? There'd be a revolution if they tried to force these savages on people here.
Think so? Hardly anyone even noticed or cared about this.
Even Americans would protest if they tried to force a few million savages down your throats. It's one thing to have 30 million illegals from Latin America. You may not like it, and you're right, but it's not even in the same ballpark as even 3 million Muslims.
You guys have no idea how awful things can get.
Americans are easily bamboozled by the reality show that our politics are.
In general, I agree with you, but it becomes a foolish position when you intentionally ignore what our enemies are doing. I care because they care. We must discern what they're doing, and why, and if possible, stop them.
The same people screwing us over in Western countries are the same people toppling foreign governments, fomenting wars, funding, training, arming, and leading fake rebels, killing civilians en masse, installing central banks, manipulating foreign markets and trade, money laundering, and so on.
I'd be with you, but if only the Western and Eastern Powers would also but out and let them fight it out themselves. our dumbass leaders have involved us, Which makes it our problem.
it's not a problem that we need to solve, but a problem that we need to exit from.
You're oblivious to our tech industry being centered in Jerusalem due to safety from earthquake.
Good documentary which touches on those two and your point about them:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=to72IJzQT5k&pp=ygUSSHlwZXJub3JtYWxpemF0aW9u
HyperNormalisation by Adam Curtis
There are only bad guys in politics.
As far as the awfulness you'd expect from Libya and Syria, Khadhafi and Assad are at the top of 'goodness' of what is realistically possible for those countries.
Now tell us how great Saddam Hussein and his Sons were.
SO the IDF is deploying in their Golem buffer zone- Sorry, Golan, can't believe my autocorrect changed that. Must be too much D&D.
Aaaand they're running ANOTHER invasion of ANOTHER country. More blood for the blood god, I suppose, but you'd think they'd finished one or two of their wars before starting another one, what, do they have infinite ammo or something? That's a trick question, I know they have infinite ammo, the USA feeds them it as required.
Considering the guy who is taking over is Al Qaeida / ISIS... Assad was a few degrees less evil.
The Syrian Christians and other minorities were safe under Assad. I guarantee you that the Christians will be slaughtered under the new "regime", whatever form it takes. The same thing that happened to Libya, after the Western backed rebel coupe against Gaddafi, will most likely happen in Syria. This will also allow the globalists to loot the treasuries and mineral/gas/oil deposits of Syria without repercussion. And, it will allow Qatar to finally run their oil and gas pipeline into Europe, which Assad stopped, which is likely the reason which spurred on the entire Western backed artificial Syrian civil war.
Oh you don't gotta tell me. Also now that Israel is claiming the Golan Heights from Syria, just announced, which just by coincidence has billions of barrels of oil potential.
Somehow Israel is allowed to expand their borders in 3 directions, but we move heaven and Earth against Russia taking back the Russian speaking portion of UKR
It's never about what they say it's about.
I was just looking into the US attitude towards Pol Pot. The Pol Pot regime was deposed in 1978 by Vietnam. Turns out that into the 1990s, the US continued to recognize Pol Pot as the legitimate leader of Cambodia.
Their justification for this wasn't "we love the Khmer Rouge", but it also makes no sense. They say that a regime imposed by Vietnam is not legitimate. Now, did they make the same argument for all the puppet regimes they installed: Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, etc.?
If the West had no double standards, they wouldn't have any.
In Libya, there were no Christians to slaughter. So instead, they reintroduced slavery, had a 13 year civil war, and caused 'migrants' to be shipped to wreck Europe further.
I think it's a fairly obvious counter attack since clown world has finally given up on the Ukies. Another phase of WW3 begins.
The long term result will likely be that both turn into terrorist states. The enemy has proven that while they can topple countries with color revolutions they can't actually build anything in the ashes, so we're looking at another Libya. While the Ukies have been getting high on their own supply of propaganda for years and will probably start a global campaign of terrorism in retribution for being "betrayed" by the West.
That's not the only reason. Look into why world governments have been trying to topple Assad's government since Obama.
Why did all of this start? The best supported position is that Syria refused to allow Qatar to run an oil and gas pipeline through their country, and into Europe. This is because Syria is Russia's lone ally in the region, and Russia gets much of (most?) of their export money from exporting their own oil and gas into Europe. Thus, Syria, Russia's ally, refused to allow a pipeline to directly compete with their ally's interests.
Oil is one of the biggest foreign markets, and as such, it's extremely corrupt and controlled. This is most likely why Western governments and their "intelligence" agencies, like the CIA and Mossad, were caught funding, training, arming, and leading the Syrian rebel forces, which eventually turned into ISIS. Weirdly, for a supposedly militant Islamic group, never attacked Israel or espoused sentiments contrary to Israel. One time, they accidently attacked Israelis, and they publicly apologized online.
Another indicator for who was running ISIS, was their propaganda videos. Most of the Muslim propaganda and on the ground civilians videos coming out of the Middle East were potato quality vids. However, ISIS somehow, for some reason, totally by cohencidence, used Hollywood level cameras and lighting, for all of their propaganda and execution videos. It was horrific, but indicative of who was running the operation.
The other big indicator for who was behind the anti-Syrian clandestine operations and propaganda, was that one of the Rothschilds used his oil company to slant drill from northern Israel into southern Syria, stealing Syria's oil deposits while Syria had no capability to respond or retaliate, when Syria's artificially created civil war was in full swing.
What's unknown, is why Russia would allow their ally to fall now, of all times? And, why is globohomo focusing on Syria again, now of all times?
My completely uninformed opinion is that Russia and Iran saw that Syria would always need propping up. The dismal state of the army speaks for itself, but let's not forget that the US has been occupying the parts of Syria that have oil in order to ensure that it would remain a failed state.
Yes that's exactly why US troops are there 🙄
Explain why you think they're there.
To prevent ISIS from controlling the oil fields, allowing them to continue being a major PITA.
Since Assad left, US has attacked known ISIS positions extensively.
Yeah, that's what they say. But I really doubt that this is their priority. They wouldn't have undermined Assad for a decade if fighting ISIS was their priority.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
Also, pretty much any time military conflict is engaged, there are multiple objectives. If you want to see who did not have a Rothschild majority owned central bank since 1935, just look where US has pointed its guns. I do think that's the single biggest factor. Obama's "JV" comment was kinda telling, but recently it's more plausible that continued US troop presence in Syria was focused on containing ISIS.
That doesn't say anything about potential clandestine operations, successfully hidden from the public.
There are no good factions in the holy wars. Israel is the same kind of warmongering dipshit nation as the rest of them.
Apparently an image of the "greater israel project" is circulating online. This could be what israel is trying to accomplish.
The Golan Highs is Syrian territory by the way.
Israel invaded it, ethnically-cleansed it and put jewish colonist there years ago.
But they totally aren't the agressor guys.
Make no mistake, in 1967 Syria was the aggressor. Since then however, Israel has been the aggressor.
Defender.
Your moderate rebel, sir. https://archive.ph/txTTa
That's unpossible, he promised HTS won't use terror tactics on civilians, will insure equal rights for all religious expression, and I'm pretty sure he'll walk your dog, too.
That was just the Putin Puppet Cheeto Hitler administration trying to prevent his master Putin from releasing the Kompromat on him by demonizing hard-working rebels.
There are no good guys here.
However, I don't fault Israel for taking over the high ground as a buffer zone. It would be stupid if they did not. Just so long as WE stay the hell out of it, I don't care what they do.
The high ground you're referring to is Mt Hermon, mentioned 13x in the KJV. About half of it was already within Israel's borders, so this isn't the land grab OP tries to make it look like. Israel has been destroying potent weapons in Syria before their enemies can capture them to attack Israel with, this includes an armored convoy of 100 Hezbollah vehicles.
The suddenness of this comparatively drastic shake up in Syria after essentially a stalemate for so long is getting significant media attention.
I agree with you - meh. I'm not quite on board with glassing the whole region, but they are going to continue killing each other and we can't stop that no matter how we try. There are lots of good things that could be done domestically with tax dollars, anything else amounts to theft. We have our own tyrants to topple.
Anyone celebrating a clownworld-sanctioned geopolitical regime change at this point in the game is a literal fucking retard.
There are no good guys, but obviously the jihadists are 1000x worse than Assad. Also, they're US puppets and I don't like that either.
How long do you suppose it will take before the true level of CIA involvement in the recent unbelievably fast regime change will be discovered?
I thought Israel invaded Syria? Deploying troops to the Golan Heights is normal whenever there's a major conflict.
It sounds more like Turkey invaded Syria, not Israel.. IIRC, they are occupying northern Syria and conducted air-strikes even on Iraq.
This just reveals that the whole Syria conflict was about Oil, surprise surprise. That was already sort of figured out years ago regarding the Arab-Turk connections, but now pretty much confirmed.
The timeline makes sense as well:
10/7/2023 - Allow large-scale terrorist attack to succeed, or at least aggravate it with fuck-ups.
10/2023-5/2024 - Spend months grieving and playing the victim card, demanding help and retribution, with muslim-jewish clashing in Western nations while Whites get caught up and punished for it.
Summer 2024 - Bulldoze the Gaza open-air prison, using the terror attack and more Hamas attacks as an excuse
Autumn 2024 - Invade Lebanon to weaken Hezbollah, using the terror attack as an excuse, and therefore the last of Assad's support vanishes
12/8/2024 - End Syrian Civil War swiftly by giving some remnants support and take as much disputed land as possible before Trump is President. Syria gets divided up between Kurds, Turks, et al, maybe some of the old country remains. New oil pipelines get formed and all Israel-aligned parties benefit.
Don't think Israel won't try to take over Lebanon though. They probably want the whole Levant.
The Syrian civil war is not over.