The lesson I’m getting here is: move to Oregon.
If the US attacks Iran, I would expect them to do it alongside the Saudis. Probably the Israelis as well.
The only thing worse than a failed US conquest of Iran would be a successful US conquest of Iran.
MBS and Netanyahu get on just fine. They’re both bloodthirsty anti-Iranian bastards.
The USA has been bombing Syria since 2014. As usual, America’s wars are (a) bipartisan, and (b) largely ignored by the US population.
No kidding. I’m old enough to have done duck & cover drills, but most of the people from my generation assumed back then that by now either the world would have been destroyed or things would have become better.
I’ve lived through some really dangerous presidents – Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, BushII come to mind – but this is the first time I really believe I have a president who just doesn’t give a crap about any consequences for his actions, and who might actually gleefully send us into WWIII.
(As for May and Macron: May politically desperately needs Trump’s friendship to justify her
Brexit policy. I don’t know WTF is going on in Macron’s head, I thought he wasn’t an idiot.)
here’s the part im honestly trying to understand. and it doesn’t seem anything that news outlets are trying to directly address.
400,000-500,000 people have died in the syrian war. well over a million displaced from their homes, but a dozen people dead from a chemical attack? somehow that - and absolutely nothing else that has happened thus far - is worth a 50 million dollar cruise missile strike.
to be clear im not comparing dollars to people. it’s just baffling. why this? why now?
Macron has internal problems of his own. Many of his voters are dissapointed with his politics. His plans for (very neccessary) labour and social reforms (mirroring the reforms of the Schröder gouverment in Germany in the early 2000s, which Germany is profiting now) are met with much resistance in the population. He needs some sucess abroad to show that he gets shit done, just like Orange Bastard, Putin and May.
We don’t know that. We know that somebody used sarin previously in this war
Can’t tell for sure, but some possibly relevant factors:
US strategy in Syria began as regime change, but it now appears to have given up on that goal. Primarily because Assad is near-impossible to topple while he has Russian support.
Current US strategy appears to be “keep the civil war going for as long as possible”. Scorched Earth tactics; leave Assad with nothing worthwhile to rule over. The stability of the region and the welfare of the Syrian people does not appear to be a consideration in this.
The Syrian Arab Army has been scoring repeated victories over the US-backed rebels in recent months. The rebellion appeared to be on the brink of collapse.
Pro tip: never fight a winter war in Russia.
He made a lot of great stuff, check your local search engine for details.
Life imitating art?
That’s almost, but not quite entirely unlike, funny.
TLDW: Russia has been successfully invaded many times in the past, and the difficulties of the Nazi invasion were mostly a result of Hitler’s idiocy.
The real key to invading Russia appears to be: do it while they’re having a civil war. Russia united is nearly unconquerable, Russia divided is no harder to conquer than anywhere else.
The West and their proxies have been pumping guns and money into Syria for about five years now.
Not impressed by that video. He forgot the Swedish invasion of Russia, where Charles XII started out extremely successful, just like Napoleon and Hitler, but just like those two the Swedish forces were worn down and finally defeated at Poltava. Napoleon certainly knew about this failure so he had even less of an excuse for repeating the same mistake.
In WW I Germany never tried to move very far into Russia, which was a smart move, and they helped foment the civil war to put Russia out of the war. The British and Americans sent troops during the civil war which didn’t end very well. I wonder how many Americans are even aware that USA invaded Russia?
What makes my blood boil is that despite all the shady shit the US government is once again climbing on it’s high horse and claim moral superiority to justify this strike … and the US media and public eating this shit up.
That they have the gall to once again claim their actions are justified because the other side used WMDs. Yeah we know how that turned out last time …
Actually it’s about 11 million, half is fleeing inside Syria the other half fled to other countries. Want to know how many the USA has taken in this year? Eleven.
One of the reasons given for the latest attack: helping those poor syrian people. Yeah right …
Not a lot.
Which is why I’ve been regularly posting this one for a year or so:
I would suggest two more.
I suspect that US policy is to “raise the cost” for Russia. They may have succeeded in saving Assad (and a multi-confessional Syria as a twofer) but the US should ensure that the costs of doing so deter further Russian “adventurism”. This provides another rationale for the Deir Ezzor attack and preventing Syria from accessing its own oil resources. It will take longer and more resources to get Syria back on its feet.
As you mentioned Syria is winning the war (this is the downside of using proxy jihadis - many of theme are crap fighters).Taking the East Ghouta enclave means that over 20k SAA soldiers can be redeployed. I would imagine they are heading south - next stop the Golan and Deera.
Forgive but sometimes I think Israel has its eyes on the Golan as a way of building a bigger buffer but also a way of exploiting the oil resources that have been found there. Or put another way, I keep thinking that it might be an idea to buy this stock.
If Dick Cheney is on the board it must be good!