The Beginning of the End of ISIS?

[Erez]

 

 

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. 

Those guys weren't sweet puppies and have repeatedly supported terror through financing and other acts. The assad family regime is part of the reasons why hezbollah is one of the biggest crime and terror organizations active today.  http://www.standupamericaus.org/world-events/hezbollahs-bank-world-wide-crime-syndicate/

 

where in what i wrote did you read that they were good people? i said they held the leash of organizations like hezbollah, al quaeda, ISIS etc within their own countries, and these orgs are now loose. 

 

I don't really see where you are going with this, whats the difference between a sadistic maniac holding the leash of a mad dog and a a free mad dog?

Don't worry i will tell you that part.

Its the hot chicks 

 

 

Isn't it funny what name the mirror picked for gaddafi? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/libya-colonel-gaddafi-supported-terror-149208.     Do you remember what the news papaers said about obamma and his red lines a few years ago regarding intervention in syria?      And did you read why hezbollah became such a prominent crime organization in europe? I will give you a hint, its because of of some explosive parties in the 80's...

Edited September 26, 2014 by Erez

[obyknven]

 

[Erez]

 

Its much easier and more convenient to place the blame on the united states for terrorists. sure as hell beats starting to develop any sense of social-civil responsibility in those states. more to the point, bad things happened in those states long before the US arrived,  we are talking about times long before 1945.

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood. 

Those guys weren't sweet puppies and have repeatedly supported terror through financing and other acts. The assad family regime is part of the reasons why hezbollah is one of the biggest crime and terror organizations active today.  http://www.standupamericaus.org/world-events/hezbollahs-bank-world-wide-crime-syndicate/

 

where in what i wrote did you read that they were good people? i said they held the leash of organizations like hezbollah, al quaeda, ISIS etc within their own countries, and these orgs are now loose. 

 

I don't really see where you are going with this, whats the difference between a sadistic maniac holding the leash of a mad dog and a a free mad dog?

Don't worry i will tell you that part.

Its the hot chicks 

 

 

Isn't it funny what name the mirror picked for gaddafi? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/libya-colonel-gaddafi-supported-terror-149208.     Do you remember what the news papaers said about obamma and his red lines a few years ago regarding intervention in syria?      And did you read why hezbollah became such a prominent crime organization in europe? I will give you a hint, its because of of some explosive parties in the 80's...

 

because the sadistic maniac can back down if you threaten him enough or can be "persuaded" to keep a low profile at least for a while. the mad dog cannot! any attempt to stop it without puting it down will just make it more aggressive.

[Erez]

because the sadistic maniac can back down if you threaten him enough or can be "persuaded" to keep a low profile at least for a while. the mad dog cannot! any attempt to stop it without puting it down will just make it more aggressive.

 

 

 

I don't know where you got this false information, wild dogs keep their heads down all of them time when the odds are against them, In israel we have one mad dog at the north - sponsored by Iran, we haven't heard from them on a big scale in 8 years due to their troubles up north. And in our southern-western border we have state of hamastan - sponsored by Iran, qatar and turkey - they never find a 100% of the time, they only fight when they are trying to achieve something.

 

Isis - sponsored by qatar, saduia arabia, united emirates - aren't very different, right now things are looking good in their favor and therefor they have no reason to stop fighting now. Its a bit like mount and blade really, Right now they are fighting for recognition, once they feel they have bitten more than they can chew they will work for a cease fire, But as long as they are working in sunni dominated lands with plenty of outside support from european sunnis; and the sponsors I mentioned above, they have no reason to stop.

 

Warfare is much like football-soccer in many ways. You won't hear any real criticism or actions about the sponsors due to two main reasons.

1) Countries must have Oil and gas to survive 

2) Iran is far more dangerous to the west than Qatar or Saudi arabia are.  For Iran-The sponsor behind assad, Hezbollah and Hamas up until recently US is the big Satan. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by Erez

[teknoman2]

US was not always the big bad satan... it became when it started to stick it's nose in everything and especially after the WTC incident when the geniuses at the WH PR department made a speech for the president that practically said "we start a war against islam"... not a country, not a terrorist group, but an entire religion

in the end, the main thing is that the US government made a huge mess with the previous wars, and now they need to start a new war to fix it. and after that they will probably need to start a new war because this one will have caused some other problem

[Erez]

US was not always the big bad satan... 

Listen to yourself, US is not the big satan, it never was.

Did bad things happen under the US regime in the past? Of- course.

But the good by far outdo the worse. Any attempt to to bash the US by demonizing it is an hypocrite attempt and a blatant release of responsibilities of the same countries who call the US the big satan in the first place, Many of those countries would do a lot better if they start to make the life in their own countries better by actually working to make it better.

 

And let me tells you a secret - Wars are never clean, but wars are sometimes inevitable. Sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right (for your society) and make a stand.

[Zoraptor]

 

US was not always the big bad satan... 

Listen to yourself, US is not the big satan, it never was.

Did bad things happen under the US regime in the past? Of- course.

But the good by far outdo the worse. Any attempt to to bash the US by demonizing it is an hypocrite attempt and a blatant release of responsibilities of the same countries who call the US the big satan in the first place, Many of those countries would do a lot better if they start to make the life in their own countries better by actually working to make it better.

 

And let me tells you a secret - Wars are never clean, but wars are sometimes inevitable. Sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right (for your society) and make a stand.

 

 

Yes, the US was never the great satan in reality, because satan is an abstract religious concept. They did however **** unashamably and repeatedly with Iran in their own narrow interests, inflicting thirty years of the Shah's reactionary, supine totalitarianism on them. Any benefit to the country being intervened in from US intervention is wholly coincidental. Look at the last five interventions done, Kosovo, klepto state whose economy is based on smuggling and having lots of NATO troops stationed there, also utterly illegal*; Afghanistan, basket case though at least it was so before intervention, will go back to civil war; Iraq, went from a country with one of the highest education, best health service and acceptance of women in the ME to a poor, strife torn, semi medieval mess under the tender ministrations of the US; Libya, trashed, went from having one of the best education and health systems to a playground for yet more proxy wars between the absolute monarchs of the gulf; ISIS, unknown but the record is terrible and similar programs in Pakistan and Yemen (two more stellar examples) have failed utterly to fix things at all, they've just undermined the states' authority repeatedly.

 

Libya, Iraq, Syria all had problems before interventions but they also had pretty good- for the region- education, health and policies towards women. They still have the same problems of repression and random brutality that previously existed, to much greater levels since by and large keeping your head down meant you escaped notice and now even that doesn't work, but have also lost the benefits Hussein, Assad and Gaddafi brought with no commensurate gains except some nebulous idea of being free to get blown up by whatever flavour of nutbar militant is currently strutting their stuff.

 

Now sure, for someone from Israel the US is a net good for obvious reasons. If you're in a country which has been the target of one of the US's failed interventions on the other hand you're not going to view them so highly at all.

 

*or rather 'legal' per a friendly ruling, but since Crimea followed the same methodology that's been forgotten as has that the precedent was set by the west.

[obyknven]

I just leave this here.

 

US planned ground invasion into Syria.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/26/dempsey-airpower-not-enough-but-no-us-ground-forces-now.html

 

Photos from Turkey (reminder - Turkey is NATO member and US satellite.)

Turkish border guards with ISIS members.

 

Turkish border guard and Kurdish man.

[Erez]

 

 

US was not always the big bad satan... 

Listen to yourself, US is not the big satan, it never was.

Did bad things happen under the US regime in the past? Of- course.

But the good by far outdo the worse. Any attempt to to bash the US by demonizing it is an hypocrite attempt and a blatant release of responsibilities of the same countries who call the US the big satan in the first place, Many of those countries would do a lot better if they start to make the life in their own countries better by actually working to make it better.

 

And let me tells you a secret - Wars are never clean, but wars are sometimes inevitable. Sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right (for your society) and make a stand.

 

 

Yes, the US was never the great satan in reality, because satan is an abstract religious concept. They did however **** unashamably and repeatedly with Iran in their own narrow interests, inflicting thirty years of the Shah's reactionary, supine totalitarianism on them. Any benefit to the country being intervened in from US intervention is wholly coincidental. Look at the last five interventions done, Kosovo, klepto state whose economy is based on smuggling and having lots of NATO troops stationed there, also utterly illegal*; Afghanistan, basket case though at least it was so before intervention, will go back to civil war; Iraq, went from a country with one of the highest education, best health service and acceptance of women in the ME to a poor, strife torn, semi medieval mess under the tender ministrations of the US; Libya, trashed, went from having one of the best education and health systems to a playground for yet more proxy wars between the absolute monarchs of the gulf; ISIS, unknown but the record is terrible and similar programs in Pakistan and Yemen (two more stellar examples) have failed utterly to fix things at all, they've just undermined the states' authority repeatedly.

 

Libya, Iraq, Syria all had problems before interventions but they also had pretty good- for the region- education, health and policies towards women. They still have the same problems of repression and random brutality that previously existed, to much greater levels since by and large keeping your head down meant you escaped notice and now even that doesn't work, but have also lost the benefits Hussein, Assad and Gaddafi brought with no commensurate gains except some nebulous idea of being free to get blown up by whatever flavour of nutbar militant is currently strutting their stuff.

 

Now sure, for someone from Israel the US is a net good for obvious reasons. If you're in a country which has been the target of one of the US's failed interventions on the other hand you're not going to view them so highly at all.

 

*or rather 'legal' per a friendly ruling, but since Crimea followed the same methodology that's been forgotten as has that the precedent was set by the west.

 

 

Lets make a few things straight - when you are talking about post 1945 US. You are really talking about UK-France-Canada-Australia-US coalition with many other countries such as Spain, Germany, Italy, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Israel, Switzerland, South Africa, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Ireland, new Zeland enjoying the results. 

 

There is no denial that this coalition has put and supported dictators in the middle east, north Africa, south america and central america and still does.

The argument here is if those actions make the coalition and their supportive states and all of their original inhabitants are evil and worthy of infidel death. 

 

Was the  Shah's regime perfect? I suppose not- Why did the western coalition think it was best to have a dictator rule iran at the time and not promote democracy. Different countries around the world are always struck in a struggle to survive - The western countries survival is not guaranteed, countries changed across human history more than once with their entire populations massacred, raped, enslaved or located elsewhere. 

The times before the collapse of the soviet dictatorship(it wasn't communism)  Were times(not too different from today) where stability had to be maintain in order to protect the west interest. The middle east was never stable, Islam and Christianity are at constant war since the rise of Islam.   the only way to ensure higher stability with the population the population in that area and safeguard energy interests was to support dictators - It was the cheapest and safest solution for the west. the other more expensive solution would have been to control those countries with military strength as giving up those energy resources and allowing them to fall into the hands of their enemies would have hasten the west demise. 

 

Saddam - Was not a good person and was not the western states friend. the chaos in the Muslim states is not because of the actions of the west. Its because their society is based more around families and less around the Idea of a state or ideology - The arab society is a society of big families - Hamulot - This encourage a larger amount of opinions, and reduce political strength. they tend to think more about their families and less about their countries. This is why its harder to see an uprising for the benefit of society as a whole in those countries and instead you see can see a small group like the Hamas Or Isis controlling with a very small number of soldiers. People are less likely to sacrifice themselves for the Idea of a country, for the idea of the greater good as they are family driven - God driven.

Its not the West which is responsible for the current demise the problems are much deeper and rooted in thought processes of thousands. You here about them more now only because water and land are much more scare then they were in the past and because no one covered the first jihads.

[obyknven]

 

2) Iran is far more dangerous to the west than Qatar or Saudi arabia are.  For Iran-The sponsor behind assad, Hezbollah and Hamas up until recently US is the big

Medieval backward jihadists is better than tolerant democratic hi-tec Iran. Obvious Zionist so obvious.

Similarity between zionists and jihadists.

1. Both prevent progress in Middle Eastern countries, both kill scientists, teachers and destroy schools.  The goal - Muslims must be backward hopeless losers.

2. Both spreading hate and war between different branches of Islam. The goal -  Muslims must be divided and weakened.

3. Both make war against secular governments of Syria, Lybia and Egypt. The goal - enemies of Israel must be exterminated.

4. Both make war against Left freedom fighters as FATAH or PKK. Even more - all these jihadists has been created during Cold War as weapon against Left movements. The goal -  - prevent progress of Humanity and World Revolution by any cost.

5. etc.

Meanwhile Iranian Shia Islam is one of most tolerant and democratic branch of Islam. Iran is a prosperous progressive science-advanced country with highly educated tolerant society. Butthut of bunch of Zionist invaders caused by this independent country is not reason for me to dislike of Iran.

http://vimeo.com/105001986

[Erez]

 

 

2) Iran is far more dangerous to the west than Qatar or Saudi arabia are.  For Iran-The sponsor behind assad, Hezbollah and Hamas up until recently US is the big

Medieval backward jihadists is better than tolerant democratic hi-tec Iran. Obvious Zionist so obvious.

Similarity between zionists and jihadists.

1. Both prevent progress in Middle Eastern countries, both kill scientists, teachers and destroy schools.  The goal - Muslims must be backward hopeless losers.

2. Both spreading hate and war between different branches of Islam. The goal -  Muslims must be divided and weakened.

3. Both make war against secular governments of Syria, Lybia and Egypt. The goal - enemies of Israel must be exterminated.

4. Both make war against Left freedom fighters as FATAH or PKK. Even more - all these jihadists has been created during Cold War as weapon against Left movements. The goal -  - prevent progress of Humanity and World Revolution by any cost.

5. etc.

Meanwhile Iranian Shia Islam is one of most tolerant and democratic branch of Islam. Iran is a prosperous progressive science-advanced country with highly educated tolerant society. Butthut of bunch of Zionist invaders caused by this independent country is not reason for me to dislike of Iran.

http://vimeo.com/105001986

 

Yes I am a proud Zionists and pro west, Just as you are a proud anti west, your anti American - European views are so blatant and stinks of hypocrite. You forget that it was america who saved Russia in 1945, you forget that until 1945 it was Russia who was the most devoted fighter against Jihadic forces - (and maybe it's still is, who knows whats really going on with backroom politics) you live in a fairyland where everything is purple and blue with fluffy rainbows - ignoring what you want about reality and filling the void with hate on the rest.  

 

   So Iran the state standing behind one of the world biggest crime syndicates and terror organizations (Hezbollah) And Hamas - Who encourage children to blow buses- Are your example of good folks? Iran which constantly preach death to the west and destruction of Israel? Iran which bans all freedom of nonmuslims in its country and quickly oppress ideas which are different from its own? Seriously?  

Dont believe me? Thats fine, just look for some videos about their leader repeated speeches in the internet. 

 

You should also know that by using Western invented technology - you are making youself an easy target for the west ' devilish claws' Thats mean, No google, no internet, no facebook, no intel hardware, no mac or windows, I  wouldn't trust linux either.  Basically don't use any computers. I would also be wary about other items, mostly medical. But it should be obvious for any anti west - that the computers are its greatest form of spreading it's 'devilish ways' 

Edited September 28, 2014 by Erez

[obyknven]

 

Yes I am a proud Zionists and pro west, Just as you are a proud anti west, your anti American - European views are so blatant and stinks of hypocrite. You forget that it was america who saved Russia in 1945, you forget that until 1945 it was Russia who was the most devoted fighter against Jihadic forces - (and maybe it's still is, who knows whats really going on with backroom politics) you live in a fairyland where everything is purple and blue with fluffy rainbows - ignoring what you want about reality and filling the void with hate on the rest.  

 

 

   So Iran the state standing behind one of the world biggest crime syndicates and terror organizations (Hezbollah) And Hamas - Who encourage children to blow buses- Are your example of good folks? Iran which constantly preach death to the west and destruction of Israel? Iran which bans all freedom of nonmuslims in its country and quickly oppress ideas which are different from its own? Seriously?  

Dont believe me? Thats fine, just look for some videos about their leader repeated speeches in the internet. 

 

You should also know that by using Western invented technology - you are making youself an easy target for the west ' devilish claws' Thats mean, No google, no internet, no facebook, no intel hardware, no mac or windows, I  wouldn't trust linux either.  Basically don't use any computers. I would also be wary about other items, mostly medical. But it should be obvious for any anti west - that the computers are its greatest form of spreading it's 'devilish ways' 

 

No-no Hamas is spawn of Israel for fight against FATH. Even today Israel periodically use Hamas as cause for bombing of Palestinians into stone age and prevent their development.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/israel-and-the-u-s-created-hamas-hezbollah-and-other-terrorists-via-blowback.html

Anyway Hamas backed by Arabic monarchies, Iran don't support them.

 

Iran back only Hezbollah, but even they are spawns of Israel politics.

http://yalibnan.com/2014/01/13/creation-of-hezbollah-is-sharons-most-enduring-legacy/

 

Other thing you posted about evil Iran is laughable too. It's tolerant country where Shia Muslims, Zoroastrians, Christians and Jews peacefully coexist.

http://www.iranjewish.com/Essay_E/Essay_e1.htm

Even more, this Iranian president and enemy of Israel has Jewish origin too, his ancestors are Iranian Jews.

Do someone can imagine Palestinian president of Israel? I can't lol.

 

If someday West bring "democracy" into Iran as this happened in Libya and Syria all these non-Muslims are die from hands of "democratic" pro-Western jihadists.

I scientist also and this is reason why i can't like country who assassinated scientists.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/US-pressuring-Israel-to-stop-killing-Iran-nuclear-scientists-343977

 

I can't like non-tolerant country filled by violent nationalists.

http://youtu.be/l0X_t15H274

 

I can't like non-tolerant country where all non-jewish religions can be attacked.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/04/settlers-christian-village.html

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gazas-christians-and-muslims-grow-closer-defiance-israeli-attacks-372261379

http://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-settlers-increase-their-attacks-palestinian-christian-sites/11756

 

I can't like non-tolerant country where people with non-jewish appearance become targets of police violence.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4071264,00.html

 

I can't like non-tolerant country who spread ethnic and religious hate in entire world.

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/explores-intersection-islamophobia

http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/islamophobia-israel-the-war-on-terror

http://politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=697683&sn=Detail

 

Sorry, but Iranian religious fanatics looks much more civilizied people than "civilizied" Zionists from Israel.

[Rosbjerg]

You forget that it was america who saved Russia in 1945

 

First up - props for having the stamina to deal with this.. but US saving Russia.. From what? Germany? 

We were so lucky that those two states decided to murder each other, if not then Europe would have been a dictatorship, facist or communist...

 

America didn't win this war, they swept up the remains. What they did do however was win the postwar cleanup, the Marshall aid etc was a genius move and the treatment of Germany was really inspiring - and to many in Europe the reason why we still rally behind 'em.

 

But saying that America saved Russia is a joke, they broke Germany's back almost completely on their own. Luckily for us they they almost broke their own back in the effort and were weakened enough not to take us on afterwards.

[Gorgon]

^^ Pretty much that. 

[nipsen]

Still waiting for some The Archer stuff..

 

Ah, war porn

Question: is it still pornography when the users truly, and honestly, believe it represents reality? Isn't it then just a perversion, rather than a fantasy for private use, that they like acting out in public to spite other people? Since for whatever sick reason, it's been decided that it's bad manners to not coddle the militarists and smile, when they lay out their strategies and rationalisations for murdering another set of 100.000 identical and insignificant brown people?

[Erez]

 

You forget that it was america who saved Russia in 1945

 

First up - props for having the stamina to deal with this.. but US saving Russia.. From what? Germany? 

We were so lucky that those two states decided to murder each other, if not then Europe would have been a dictatorship, facist or communist...

 

America didn't win this war, they swept up the remains. What they did do however was win the postwar cleanup, the Marshall aid etc was a genius move and the treatment of Germany was really inspiring - and to many in Europe the reason why we still rally behind 'em.

 

But saying that America saved Russia is a joke, they broke Germany's back almost completely on their own. Luckily for us they they almost broke their own back in the effort and were weakened enough not to take us on afterwards.

 

Without US accomplishments in the war Russia would have lost, as nazi germany would have only one front to focus on. Even before the united states joined the war, they sent extensive aid in form of oil and military equipment and other goods to russia and Britian.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease. The scorched earth policy wouldn't have been as effective without this aid. At the end of war world 2, russia was at a much weaker state in comparasion to the US due to war fatigue.  Losses for russia amounted to 26.6 million people, just imagine how high they would have been without all of this help.  The us economic might is what won world war 2 and saved Russia, the same economic might so scorned upon  by obykven.  It's hypocrisy at its highest form and kind of reminds me of this video 

Edited September 28, 2014 by Erez

[JadedWolf]

Without any of the three main allied powers WW2 might have been won by the axis, and there is no point in claiming one of the three was more important than the others. And don't underestimate the importance of GB - it's easy to look at GB as it is today and to think of GB as a junior partner, but in those days GB was still very much a superpower, and the resources and the men from its colonies made a huge impact. And consider how easy it would have been for Britain to make a quick peace with Germany after they occupied France, in which case Germany could have focused all its attention on Russia. And yet they bravely fought on, even when at times there was very little hope. Remember that GB had to defend itself for a very long time while the U.S. was still not willing to fully commit itself against the Germans. In fact the U.S. never did declare war on the Germans - it was the Germans who declared war on the U.S. due to their alliance with Japan. (Well, technically the U.S. did declare war on Germany, immediately after Germany declared war on them.)

 

 

Edited September 28, 2014 by JadedWolf

[obyknven]

As predicted US use airstrikes against ISIS as covering for war against Syria.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/air-strikes-on-islamic-state-target-syrias-largest-gas-plant/story-e6frg6so-1227073500147?nk=f4a0392d7d63ec3e51198cdef1f57af6

 

Air strikes on Islamic State target Syria’s largest gas plant

In other words they do want destroy Syrian property and important Syrian economical structures. The Terror against civilian objects It's usual  strategy of NATO (and his predecessors - during WW2 they bombed peaceful German towns instead of military objects by same way), we see many examples of this during war in Serbia, Iraq and Libya. 

[BruceVC]

As predicted US use airstrikes against ISIS as covering for war against Syria.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/air-strikes-on-islamic-state-target-syrias-largest-gas-plant/story-e6frg6so-1227073500147?nk=f4a0392d7d63ec3e51198cdef1f57af6

 

Air strikes on Islamic State target Syria’s largest gas plant

In other words they do want destroy Syrian property and important Syrian economical structures. The Terror against civilian objects It's usual  strategy of NATO (and his predecessors - during WW2 they bombed peaceful German towns instead of military objects by same way), we see many examples of this during war in Serbia, Iraq and Libya. 

 

As usual your understanding of these events is horribly misinformed

 

ISIS controls certain energy resources in Syria, the airstrikes are designed to weaken and destroy ISIS ability to generate revenue and wage war. Therefore obviously this gas plant is a legitimate target as by destroying this you reduce the military effectiveness of ISIS as they have less money to fund there operations

[Namutree]

 

 

As predicted US use airstrikes against ISIS as covering for war against Syria.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/air-strikes-on-islamic-state-target-syrias-largest-gas-plant/story-e6frg6so-1227073500147?nk=f4a0392d7d63ec3e51198cdef1f57af6

 

Air strikes on Islamic State target Syria’s largest gas plant

In other words they do want destroy Syrian property and important Syrian economical structures. The Terror against civilian objects It's usual  strategy of NATO (and his predecessors - during WW2 they bombed peaceful German towns instead of military objects by same way), we see many examples of this during war in Serbia, Iraq and Libya. 

 

As usual your understanding of these events is horribly misinformed

 

ISIS controls certain energy resources in Syria, the airstrikes are designed to weaken and destroy ISIS ability to generate revenue and wage war. Therefore obviously this gas plant is a legitimate target as by destroying this you reduce the military effectiveness of ISIS as they have less money to fund there operations

 

I wouldn't be surprised if weakening Assad's strategic position was seen as a bonus. We probably should compensate Syria if the plant sustains serious damage; unless this was done with Assad's approval.

 

Not that this should even be done at all.

 

 

[Longknife]

You forget that it was america who saved Russia in 1945

 

This is like saying we saved Mike Tyson from Jersey Shore's Snookie. Russia did NOT need saving.

 

Pretty much the only thing that put the USA on par with the strength of Russia at that time was a really big ****ing bomb and the USA's willingness to utilize it. It's commonly accepted Russia could've overtaken Germany with relative ease and then swallowed all of Europe with it, if it wanted. They were also the single-most pivotal and important country in the Nazi defeat.

[Namutree]

 

You forget that it was america who saved Russia in 1945

This is like saying we saved Mike Tyson from Jersey Shore's Snookie. Russia did NOT need saving.

 

Pretty much the only thing that put the USA on par with the strength of Russia at that time was a really big ****ing bomb and the USA's willingness to utilize it. It's commonly accepted Russia could've overtaken Germany with relative ease and then swallowed all of Europe with it, if it wanted. They were also the single-most pivotal and important country in the Nazi defeat.

 

I agree with almost all of this. I don't believe that the Soviet Union could have swallowed all of Europe, but the rest is definitely true. Our biggest contribution to the war was our victory over Japan. Not that we didn't help with Germany, but we weren't number 1 or even needed in that department.

[Walsingham]

 

You forget that it was america who saved Russia in 1945

 

First up - props for having the stamina to deal with this.. but US saving Russia.. From what? Germany? 

We were so lucky that those two states decided to murder each other, if not then Europe would have been a dictatorship, facist or communist...

 

America didn't win this war, they swept up the remains. What they did do however was win the postwar cleanup, the Marshall aid etc was a genius move and the treatment of Germany was really inspiring - and to many in Europe the reason why we still rally behind 'em.

 

But saying that America saved Russia is a joke, they broke Germany's back almost completely on their own. Luckily for us they they almost broke their own back in the effort and were weakened enough not to take us on afterwards.

 

 

Ros, I think that's a bit simplistic. War's aren't fought with just men. And effort isn't measured in just war graves.

 

The United States and Great Britain both donated equipment which the USSR couldn't build at the start of the war. Trucks, tanks and... radios.

 

I don't mean to diminish Russia's war dead, don't confuse a dramatic notion - that the USSR was some mighty colossus - with the truth - that the USSR was a viscid mass of confusion fear and blood. A blind terrified animal that could not even bring itself to acknowledge the sacrifices of its own returned PoWs, let alone filthy capitalist assistance.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Walsingham

[Volourn]

"It's commonly accepted Russia could've overtaken Germany with relative ease and then swallowed all of Europe with it, if it wanted."

 

Doubtful.