+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: Beyond America (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-9.html)
+---- Thread: The Middle Eastern question (/thread-54.html)
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Ragnarök_62 - 12-31-2016
(12-31-2016, 08:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:(12-31-2016, 03:51 AM)Galen Wrote:(12-30-2016, 05:53 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(12-23-2016, 10:37 AM)Galen Wrote: So far Russia seems to be more effective at eradicating ISIS. Not really surprising given their history with Muslims.
How so? Aleppo wasn't ISIS held. So what exactly has Russia done to eradicate ISIS?
As I recall it was held by Al Nusra which split off from ISIS. I doubt they were really much better than ISIS or that they had really separated from them. What ever you might say about Assad he did protect many religious minorities such as Christians from the Muslim majority. Until the war his body count was actually very low.
Its a bit like Saddam Hussein, bad as he was the alternative turned out to be worse. This would seem to be the case with Assad.
So by your measure, Syria is no-win. What would you propose? Other than the Kurds, we have no real friends in the area -- including the current regime in Turkey.
Fish or cut bait?
Syria, like [Afghanistan,Iraq,Libya] are all no wins. I'm not sure what "fish or cut bait" means, but the fish pond where said fish reside are chock full of mercury which means we should just leave it be or suffer getting poisoned.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Galen - 01-01-2017
(12-31-2016, 08:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:(12-31-2016, 03:51 AM)Galen Wrote:(12-30-2016, 05:53 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(12-23-2016, 10:37 AM)Galen Wrote: So far Russia seems to be more effective at eradicating ISIS. Not really surprising given their history with Muslims.
How so? Aleppo wasn't ISIS held. So what exactly has Russia done to eradicate ISIS?
As I recall it was held by Al Nusra which split off from ISIS. I doubt they were really much better than ISIS or that they had really separated from them. What ever you might say about Assad he did protect many religious minorities such as Christians from the Muslim majority. Until the war his body count was actually very low.
Its a bit like Saddam Hussein, bad as he was the alternative turned out to be worse. This would seem to be the case with Assad.
So by your measure, Syria is no-win. What would you propose? Other than the Kurds, we have no real friends in the area -- including the current regime in Turkey.
Its a no win scenario.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Ragnarök_62 - 01-27-2017
Tulsi clears the air on the Syrian question.
The big take away: There are no moderate rebels!
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Warren Dew - 01-27-2017
(12-31-2016, 05:22 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(12-31-2016, 08:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:(12-31-2016, 03:51 AM)Galen Wrote:(12-30-2016, 05:53 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(12-23-2016, 10:37 AM)Galen Wrote: So far Russia seems to be more effective at eradicating ISIS. Not really surprising given their history with Muslims.
How so? Aleppo wasn't ISIS held. So what exactly has Russia done to eradicate ISIS?
As I recall it was held by Al Nusra which split off from ISIS. I doubt they were really much better than ISIS or that they had really separated from them. What ever you might say about Assad he did protect many religious minorities such as Christians from the Muslim majority. Until the war his body count was actually very low.
Its a bit like Saddam Hussein, bad as he was the alternative turned out to be worse. This would seem to be the case with Assad.
So by your measure, Syria is no-win. What would you propose? Other than the Kurds, we have no real friends in the area -- including the current regime in Turkey.
Fish or cut bait?
Syria, like [Afghanistan,Iraq,Libya] are all no wins. I'm not sure what "fish or cut bait" means, but the fish pond where said fish reside are chock full of mercury which means we should just leave it be or suffer getting poisoned.
That would be cutting bait - cutting the fishing line and abandoning the bait and the fishing.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Ragnarök_62 - 01-27-2017
(01-27-2017, 05:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-31-2016, 05:22 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(12-31-2016, 08:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:(12-31-2016, 03:51 AM)Galen Wrote:(12-30-2016, 05:53 PM)Mikebert Wrote: How so? Aleppo wasn't ISIS held. So what exactly has Russia done to eradicate ISIS?
As I recall it was held by Al Nusra which split off from ISIS. I doubt they were really much better than ISIS or that they had really separated from them. What ever you might say about Assad he did protect many religious minorities such as Christians from the Muslim majority. Until the war his body count was actually very low.
Its a bit like Saddam Hussein, bad as he was the alternative turned out to be worse. This would seem to be the case with Assad.
So by your measure, Syria is no-win. What would you propose? Other than the Kurds, we have no real friends in the area -- including the current regime in Turkey.
Fish or cut bait?
Syria, like [Afghanistan,Iraq,Libya] are all no wins. I'm not sure what "fish or cut bait" means, but the fish pond where said fish reside are chock full of mercury which means we should just leave it be or suffer getting poisoned.
That would be cutting bait - cutting the fishing line and abandoning the bait and the fishing.
I can buy that. Cutting the fishing line = attempts to oust Assad, Bait = Assad , fishing = bombing the hell out of Syria. Mercury poisoning = blowback
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Classic-Xer - 01-27-2017
(12-31-2016, 08:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:I wouldn't propose to cut bait that's for sure. We know what happened when we tried to cut bait in Iraq. We do what we are doing now and allow Russian to do what it is doing as well. You need to emotionally/politically separate yourself from Vietnam and move your mindset and your way of thinking towards heavily defeating World War II Nazi Germany. It's got to be done. I've been trying to tell you for years that isn't another Vietnam scenario, we can't pullout like we did in Vietnam be OK because their stated goal is to kill/destroy us.(12-31-2016, 03:51 AM)Galen Wrote:(12-30-2016, 05:53 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(12-23-2016, 10:37 AM)Galen Wrote: So far Russia seems to be more effective at eradicating ISIS. Not really surprising given their history with Muslims.
How so? Aleppo wasn't ISIS held. So what exactly has Russia done to eradicate ISIS?
As I recall it was held by Al Nusra which split off from ISIS. I doubt they were really much better than ISIS or that they had really separated from them. What ever you might say about Assad he did protect many religious minorities such as Christians from the Muslim majority. Until the war his body count was actually very low.
Its a bit like Saddam Hussein, bad as he was the alternative turned out to be worse. This would seem to be the case with Assad.
So by your measure, Syria is no-win. What would you propose? Other than the Kurds, we have no real friends in the area -- including the current regime in Turkey.
Fish or cut bait?
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Classic-Xer - 01-27-2017
(01-27-2017, 06:50 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:Fishing=NATO bombing the hell out of Islamic radicals for the NATO/Kurdish army & Russia bombing the hell out of Islamic radicals for the Syrian army. I assume there will be a line drawn where the Kurdish/NATO & Syrian forces meet and shake hands and begin the diplomatic process to make the line permanent. Result. A new Kurdistan backed by NATO and a more democratic Syria backed by Russia.(01-27-2017, 05:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-31-2016, 05:22 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(12-31-2016, 08:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:(12-31-2016, 03:51 AM)Galen Wrote: As I recall it was held by Al Nusra which split off from ISIS. I doubt they were really much better than ISIS or that they had really separated from them. What ever you might say about Assad he did protect many religious minorities such as Christians from the Muslim majority. Until the war his body count was actually very low.
Its a bit like Saddam Hussein, bad as he was the alternative turned out to be worse. This would seem to be the case with Assad.
So by your measure, Syria is no-win. What would you propose? Other than the Kurds, we have no real friends in the area -- including the current regime in Turkey.
Fish or cut bait?
Syria, like [Afghanistan,Iraq,Libya] are all no wins. I'm not sure what "fish or cut bait" means, but the fish pond where said fish reside are chock full of mercury which means we should just leave it be or suffer getting poisoned.
That would be cutting bait - cutting the fishing line and abandoning the bait and the fishing.
I can buy that. Cutting the fishing line = attempts to oust Assad, Bait = Assad , fishing = bombing the hell out of Syria. Mercury poisoning = blowback
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Eric the Green - 01-27-2017
(01-27-2017, 05:42 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Tulsi clears the air on the Syrian question.
The big take away: There are no moderate rebels!
Too bad she puts this out. Total nonsense.
I have to more or less agree with Classic Xer and David Horn on this.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Ragnarök_62 - 01-27-2017
(01-27-2017, 08:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Ragnarök_62
Tulsi clears the air on the Syrian question.
<snip>
The big take away: There are no moderate rebels!
Eric the Green Wrote:Too bad she puts this out. Total nonsense.
I have to more or less agree with Classic Xer and David Horn on this.
Heh, after looking at Classic Xer m David horn, and Gabbi, they agree with moi.
Welcome aboard the reality train, there Eric. All aboard.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Ragnarök_62 - 12-21-2018
(01-27-2017, 07:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:Update : https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/12/why-trump-decided-to-remove-us-troops-from-syria.html(12-31-2016, 08:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:I wouldn't propose to cut bait that's for sure. We know what happened when we tried to cut bait in Iraq. We do what we are doing now and allow Russian to do what it is doing as well. You need to emotionally/politically separate yourself from Vietnam and move your mindset and your way of thinking towards heavily defeating World War II Nazi Germany. It's got to be done. I've been trying to tell you for years that isn't another Vietnam scenario, we can't pullout like we did in Vietnam be OK because their stated goal is to kill/destroy us.(12-31-2016, 03:51 AM)Galen Wrote:(12-30-2016, 05:53 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(12-23-2016, 10:37 AM)Galen Wrote: So far Russia seems to be more effective at eradicating ISIS. Not really surprising given their history with Muslims.
How so? Aleppo wasn't ISIS held. So what exactly has Russia done to eradicate ISIS?
As I recall it was held by Al Nusra which split off from ISIS. I doubt they were really much better than ISIS or that they had really separated from them. What ever you might say about Assad he did protect many religious minorities such as Christians from the Muslim majority. Until the war his body count was actually very low.
Its a bit like Saddam Hussein, bad as he was the alternative turned out to be worse. This would seem to be the case with Assad.
So by your measure, Syria is no-win. What would you propose? Other than the Kurds, we have no real friends in the area -- including the current regime in Turkey.
Fish or cut bait?
Looks like Trump has seen the light. Out we go because:
1. Stay and piss off the Turks
or.
2. Leave and hopefully keep Turkey in NATO.
Sorry, there are no other options, you have to pick. I knew this a long time ago. Turkey despises the Kurds, so if we help the Kurds, then Turkey'll most likely tell NATO to take a hike and be a Putin bro. I just love it when stupid Neocons paint themselves into these sorts of corners. Sorry, this is a typical Vietnam situation. Due to nukies, there can be no more WWII situations anymore.
thingie made in China ... 'cause globalization. Whoopsie.
![[Image: 3658.jpg?itok=H_xDDtbx]](https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/3658.jpg?itok=H_xDDtbx)
I wonder which US city this thing has for a destination, man.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Ragnarök_62 - 01-14-2019
Rotten fish = whale[Pompeo] + walrus[Bolton]
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/01/pompeos-middle-east-speech-a-blustering-push-for-less-us-involvement.html
Selected goodies from Pompous Pompeo.
"
ecause I’m a military man by training, I’ll be very blunt and direct today: America is a force for good in the Middle East. We need to acknowledge that truth, because if we don’t, we make bad choices – now and in the future
Remember: It was here, here in this city, that another American stood before you.
Rags sez : Pompeo eats a platoon's worth of food daily. / dimwit Pompeo, you're clueless, man.
He told you that radical Islamist terrorism does not stem from an ideology. He told you that 9/11 led my country to abandon its ideals, particularly in the Middle East. He told you that the United States and the Muslim world needed, quote, “a new beginning,” end of quote. The results of these misjudgments have been dire.
Rags sez : Obama's right. Bombing isn't a way to win friends and influence people. You're the idiot.
In falsely seeing ourselves as a force for what ails the Middle East, we were timid in asserting ourselves when the times – and our partners – demanded it.
Rags sez: The US is a bloated empire that fucks over anyone, particularly if they have oil.
...
The good news. The good news is this: The age of self-inflicted American shame is over, and so are the policies that produced so much needless suffering. Now comes the real new beginning.
For those who fret about the use of American power, remember this: America has always been, and always will be, a liberating force, not an occupying power. [b]We’ve never dreamed of domination in the Middle East"
Rags Sez: Huh? Liar, liar pants on fire. Get real. That's all the US has done since 'Nam, in a whole lot of countries.
When the mission is over, when the job is complete, America leaves. Today in Iraq, at the government’s invitation, we have approximately 5,000 troops where there were once 166,000. We once had tens of thousands of U.S. military stationed – personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia. Now that number is a tiny fraction.
So when are all of these missions where we have 800+ bases strewn all over the place going to end, huh?
The US military is like herpes, it never leaves.
Let me be clear: America will not retreat until the terror fight is over. [...] President Trump has made the decision to bring our troops home from Syria. We always do and now is the time, but this isn’t a change of mission.
Rags sez: OK. Let's have a concise definition of the term, "terror". Methinks that Blackwater qualifies as "terror", myself. So bring all military, black ops, and mercenaries out, out out. And close those stupid bases in Syria and Iraq.
"
[/b]
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Eric the Green - 01-14-2019
If and when the USA leaves Eastern Syria, Turkey will attack the Kurds. What will Turkey do after attacking them? Will it seize the territory, or just turn it over to Assad? Or maybe Assad and Turkey, former enemies, both attack, and then attack each other again. Russia will support Assad, but what will it do about the Kurds? Will they defend them, or let them be slaughtered? Or join the slaughter? What will this do to USA credibility as an ally, if that's important? Leaving them in the lurch after they defeated the IS for us, does not seem in good faith. But, maybe that doesn't matter. The US troops will be home, and we can defend our shores. If the IS rebounds, that won't matter. If the Kurds are massacred, that makes no difference to us. As Neville Chamberlain said, they are too far away to concern us.
Rags sez if we stay in Eastern Syria we piss off the Turks. But we have been there for some time, and that has deterred them from attacking.
So, we'll see what happens. Another major war is predicted by the planets to break out either at the beginning (or more likely, at the end) of the year 2020. The USA probably will stay out, but it will be involved somehow anyway, and we'll reap the whirlwind with more intervention likely as the US war cycle comes around again in 2025. OK, my crystal ball is going out for the nite.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Eric the Green - 01-14-2019
(01-27-2017, 08:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(01-27-2017, 06:50 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:Fishing=NATO bombing the hell out of Islamic radicals for the NATO/Kurdish army & Russia bombing the hell out of Islamic radicals for the Syrian army. I assume there will be a line drawn where the Kurdish/NATO & Syrian forces meet and shake hands and begin the diplomatic process to make the line permanent. Result. A new Kurdistan backed by NATO and a more democratic Syria backed by Russia.(01-27-2017, 05:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-31-2016, 05:22 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(12-31-2016, 08:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: So by your measure, Syria is no-win. What would you propose? Other than the Kurds, we have no real friends in the area -- including the current regime in Turkey.
Fish or cut bait?
Syria, like [Afghanistan,Iraq,Libya] are all no wins. I'm not sure what "fish or cut bait" means, but the fish pond where said fish reside are chock full of mercury which means we should just leave it be or suffer getting poisoned.
That would be cutting bait - cutting the fishing line and abandoning the bait and the fishing.
I can buy that. Cutting the fishing line = attempts to oust Assad, Bait = Assad , fishing = bombing the hell out of Syria. Mercury poisoning = blowback
Well I don't agree with this scenario. "Syria backed by Russia" is the most despotic regime in the world now. Russia and Assad bombed the hell out of those who wanted to create a democratic Syria backed by The West.
Right now I see no solution for Syria at all. More war and tragic slaughter seems inevitable. A new general war will result by next year, and some years later the USA will be dragged in.
I really resent the distortions and propaganda promoted by Tulsi Gabbard. She supports a genocidal tyrant. She also supports war with Iran, and backs Hindu nationalism in India and massacres against Muslims. I can't see voting for her even if she is the alternative to Trump. I might go back to voting Green in that case.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Eric the Green - 01-14-2019
I found this video on Syria today. It summarizes the situation well, without distortions.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Ragnarök_62 - 01-15-2019
(01-14-2019, 11:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If and when the USA leaves Eastern Syria, Turkey will attack the Kurds. What will Turkey do after attacking them? Will it seize the territory, or just turn it over to Assad? Or maybe Assad and Turkey, former enemies, both attack, and then attack each other again. Russia will support Assad, but what will it do about the Kurds? Will they defend them, or let them be slaughtered? Or join the slaughter? What will this do to USA credibility as an ally, if that's important? Leaving them in the lurch after they defeated the IS for us, does not seem in good faith. But, maybe that doesn't matter. The US troops will be home, and we can defend our shores. If the IS rebounds, that won't matter. If the Kurds are massacred, that makes no difference to us. As Neville Chamberlain said, they are too far away to concern us.
Rags sez if we stay in Eastern Syria we piss off the Turks. But we have been there for some time, and that has deterred them from attacking.
So, we'll see what happens. Another major war is predicted by the planets to break out either at the beginning (or more likely, at the end) of the year 2020. The USA probably will stay out, but it will be involved somehow anyway, and we'll reap the whirlwind with more intervention likely as the US war cycle comes around again in 2025. OK, my crystal ball is going out for the nite.
Uh, no. The best thing to happen would be if the Kurds make nice with Assad. That way Turkey will lay off. There is no reason why the US should bother with every little tin pot hissy fit in the world. And yes, I'm gonna vote for Tulsi because she's the only one who's down on this road to ruin empire business. The US is just a shit hole country with nukes because we can't keep our hands to ourselves. Domestic priorities come fist. I'm a nationalist, but not like Trump.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/id-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-lyrics-new-seekers.html
Updated for us Oscar the grouch types.
I'd like to build the US infrastructure
and furnish it with steel
grow gleaming renewables
and single payer
I'd like the world to fuck off
and leave me in perfect harmony.
I'd like to shove it away
and so I don't have to pay
I'd love to shove off the world for once
all Neocons and Neolibs to cry
and hear them echo through the hills
for rags peace throughout the land
for a new plan for the land.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Ragnarök_62 - 01-15-2019
(01-14-2019, 11:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I found this video on Syria today. It summarizes the situation well, without distortions.
Well, considering Iraq,Libya, 'Nam, Latin American, and Afghanistan, Neocons certainly have the reverse midas touch. IOW, everything they touch, turns to shit. That means if we can at least bail out of Syria, the shitpile won't be as big and stink as much.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Bill the Piper - 01-17-2019
Assad has won, ISIS and liberals have lost. In general, the secular Arab nationalists are winning, despite being hated by both Islamists and liberals. They are backed by Russia and China, so they will grow only more powerful
Egypt. The coup restored the Mubarak regime only with a younger leader.
Lybia. It's an "anocracy", but Haftar is the most powerful warlord. His son's name is Saddam. I think it speaks for itself.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - David Horn - 01-18-2019
(01-17-2019, 07:56 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Assad has won, ISIS and liberals have lost. In general, the secular Arab nationalists are winning, despite being hated by both Islamists and liberals. They are backed by Russia and China, so they will grow only more powerful
Egypt. The coup restored the Mubarak regime only with a younger leader.
Lybia. It's an "anocracy", but Haftar is the most powerful warlord. His son's name is Saddam. I think it speaks for itself.
Which begs the question: can some enlightened but active Middle East involvement by the West create positive change? Personally, I think not. The Brits and French screwed the pooch after WWI, and 100 years doesn't seem to have made things less dire. That only leaves the issue of humanitarian involvement, and we don't seem to do that very well either. We may be the wrong tool for the job -- at least for now. How long 'now' will last is the real question.
A lot of the discontent is due to the intransigence of the Israelis. Perhaps it's their turn.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Eric the Green - 01-18-2019
(01-15-2019, 12:15 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(01-14-2019, 11:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I found this video on Syria today. It summarizes the situation well, without distortions.
Well, considering Iraq,Libya, 'Nam, Latin American, and Afghanistan, Neocons certainly have the reverse midas touch. IOW, everything they touch, turns to shit. That means if we can at least bail out of Syria, the shitpile won't be as big and stink as much.
I don't think it would be responsible to bail out now. The Kurds did the most to roll back the Islamic State, and the USA did the right thing in backing them. It was Obama's policy, and he's not a neo-con, although he's no peacenik or isolationist either.
Has the USA turned this operation into shit? To some extent, yes. It seems we almost always do. The bombing, in this case, killed a lot of civilians, the very people we were trying to liberate, ever since Trump took over with his "we'll win so much you'll get tired of winning" and "you've got to take out their families" approach to war.
But the USA is all that stands between the Kurds and them being wiped out by Erdogen and Assad. So that is the problem we face. And the IS has not been defeated yet. So it is very likely that pulling out now will lead to more war and more slaughter. 2020 is predicted by my methods to be a likely starting year for a major war, and this could be it.
It depends on how the USA behaves there, of course. Under Trump or any Republicans, the USA might yet find a way to screw things up further in Syria. Trump is a looney. His impulses are not necessarily the best policies.
RE: The Middle Eastern question - Eric the Green - 01-18-2019
(01-15-2019, 12:13 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(01-14-2019, 11:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If and when the USA leaves Eastern Syria, Turkey will attack the Kurds. What will Turkey do after attacking them? Will it seize the territory, or just turn it over to Assad? Or maybe Assad and Turkey, former enemies, both attack, and then attack each other again. Russia will support Assad, but what will it do about the Kurds? Will they defend them, or let them be slaughtered? Or join the slaughter? What will this do to USA credibility as an ally, if that's important? Leaving them in the lurch after they defeated the IS for us, does not seem in good faith. But, maybe that doesn't matter. The US troops will be home, and we can defend our shores. If the IS rebounds, that won't matter. If the Kurds are massacred, that makes no difference to us. As Neville Chamberlain said, they are too far away to concern us.
Rags sez if we stay in Eastern Syria we piss off the Turks. But we have been there for some time, and that has deterred them from attacking.
So, we'll see what happens. Another major war is predicted by the planets to break out either at the beginning (or more likely, at the end) of the year 2020. The USA probably will stay out, but it will be involved somehow anyway, and we'll reap the whirlwind with more intervention likely as the US war cycle comes around again in 2025. OK, my crystal ball is going out for the nite.
Uh, no. The best thing to happen would be if the Kurds make nice with Assad. That way Turkey will lay off. There is no reason why the US should bother with every little tin pot hissy fit in the world. And yes, I'm gonna vote for Tulsi because she's the only one who's down on this road to ruin empire business. The US is just a shit hole country with nukes because we can't keep our hands to ourselves. Domestic priorities come fist. I'm a nationalist, but not like Trump.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/id-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-lyrics-new-seekers.html
Updated for us Oscar the grouch types.
Updated for us poet types who like the lines to scan with the music:
I'd like to build infra--structure
and furnish it with steel
grow lots of clean renewables
and single payer too
I'd like the world to just fuck off
in perfect harmony.
I'd like to shove it all away
so I don't have to pay
I'd love to make all Neocons
and Neolibs to cry
and hear them echo through the hills
for peace throughout the land
a new plan for the land.... .
You can't make nice with Assad. He's not nice. He wants total obedience. No protests, or you die. The Kurds want democracy. Assad and Kurds don't play nice together. It won't work. Assad will slaughter them like he has almost everyone else in his enslaved country.
Kurds making nice with Assad will piss off Turkey. Assad and Turkey are enemies. No, the USA can't deal with every hissy fit in the world, I agree. And we have our own priorities to attend to.
But Tulsi is a phony. Not only does she support a genodical mass murderer, but she is a Hindu nationalist, and doesn't care about what happens to anyone except her own kind. She supports drone wars too, and hates Iran. She wanted us to drop MORE bombs on the Syrian rebels. I myself will not even vote for Tulsi if she's the nominee against Trump, and she's the ONLY Democrat I won't vote for in that case. She's a fool and a creepy deceiver believer. No, I don't vote for conspiracy theory. I do have at least SOME use for actual facts! Not propaganda based on nothing, like Tulsi uses! NO ON TULSI!