Quote:
Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Does that make ISIS good guys? If not, which guys are worse? Oh Peter Dooky, we're back into those "shades of grey" my willful lobotomy was supposed to wipe out!!!
|
Bad is bad. Both are bad. One is bad now, the other is bad later. No amount of democracy is going to westernize or secularize them away from their religion and hatred of USA, western values and of Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The alternative is the United States of America. You know, the country where the president who presided over drug dealing to impoverished blacks domestically to bypass congress in funding covert wars is still worshiped as a hero and the greatest post-WW2 leader (triggered?). There are not "good guys".
|
That is where you are wrong. For all our horrible politicians and everything messed up going on at home and abroad, USA is the good guys. Our nations actions for over a century, regardless of the motives behind them, has made life safer and better for civilized peoples everywhere. You are an idiot if you think otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Assad, Saddam and Gaddafi all had pretty solid control over their respective territories before they were destabilized from outside. Your statement above is simply false, and you are in one deep motherfucking slumber if you believe the continuing instability in Syria is an organic outgrowth of an organic Arab Spring.
|
I've seen and read what Syrians thought about Assad since before the war even started. To them, he is a skinny, effeminate, westernized prick and a horrible successor or alternative to his father and brothers.
Did the US use that to our advantage - I'm sure. Is everything we're doing above board? Almost definitely not. Do we have to use all kinds of round about ways to accomplish things in the mideast. Always unfortunately. We are now cucks to the UN and can't do whats obviously right due to real globalist restrictions.
Is both the middle east and the world better off when Arab nations are not allowed to unite under a hostile ideology? of course. Again, anyone that doesn't think so is an idiot and beyond educating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Instability in the middle-east is highly conducive to the goals of (((internationalist financiers))) and American/Europeans with (((dual loyalties))) although it is partially aligned with support of the petrodollar (entangling alliance, and you are not an American if you think it is a good thing). You can disagree or call me tinfoil for believing that these people will follow their "prophecy" even deeper down the rabbit hole, but considering that Zionists are fully planning on the destruction of Israel as a stepping stone to global dominion, I consider them to be globalists. Maybe I'm wrong and Zionists really are just Israeli nationalists and I'm misusing the word "globalism". shrug
|
As I've said before, global politics is an absolute clusterfuck of opposing agendas. The house is divided, it always has been and always will be even if their causes align at some points on some issues.
Trying to ascertain who exactly is doing what for who and what reason is nearly impossible because even the people responsible aren't entirely sure what part of any action or sanction or military action is backed by who. Its just not as simple as conspiracy theorists and anti-zionists like to believe.