Enough Talking Already

“France called on Tuesday for an immediate United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss the situation in Aleppo and said it would press for a U.N. resolution to punish the use of chemical weapons in Syria.”
 
See France wants urgent U.N. Security Council meeting on Aleppo
My uncle used to say if you wanted a cattle-prod to be effective on pigs you have to first hit the animal over the head so it knows you have one… Syria and Russia will not come to a political settlement until they are severely hurt on the battlefield and the budget. Sweeping their planes from the sky would be a start. Punishing their artillery units would be a start. Arming and feeding Aleppo would be a start. Where is the will to end this outrageous crime against humanity?

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Enough Talking Already

  1. dougman wrote, “No on here likes you”.

    That’s not true at all. dougman does not speak for me. I like oiaohm. He writes complete thoughts, for instance, instead of strawmen-innuendo.

  2. dougman says:

    “Deaf Spy this is not your site and just insulting is not going to get anywhere.”

    You’re still a dumbass Fifi. That is a fact, like it or not. Copy/pasting shit from the web onto countless other blogs, doe’s not make you smart. No on here likes you, and fortunately I hope for the sake of our species, you never procreate.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy this is not your site and just insulting is not going to get anywhere.

  4. dougman says:

    BTW, have you even attempted to start your deformation suit yet Fifi? If you like, I could setup a GOFUNDME to assist in your endeavor.

  5. dougman says:

    “Every time you insult me dougman I just take it as I am 100 percent correct and you are and idiot who cannot pick out a valid counter point.”

    So, using your logic, one could insult you by showing you how much of a dumb-ass your are, and you being you, would “take it as being 100 percent correct”. VERY INTERESTING… I like this line of thought, continue.

  6. Deaf Spy says:

    I just take it as I am 100 percent correct

    You may just take it as you are the King and Queen of Cheese, Fifi. Get lost.

  7. oiaohm says:

    dougman really go and read the art of war. It covers the russia winter strategic play instead of cold using monsoon.

    In war you have at least two forces to fight you. The Russia front world war II German records show they completely forget about nature as a force of opposition and paid a huge price for it.

    Every time you insult me dougman I just take it as I am 100 percent correct and you are and idiot who cannot pick out a valid counter point.

    By the way games like call of duty cause some of the problem because the weapons displayed are not in the the correct ratios for the ones that were in fact used in the world war II. In fact the models of the most common produced and used types of Russia heavy weapons in World War II are completely missing from the game.

    So Deaf Spy incorrect comments could be based on playing those games instead of doing real history.

  8. dougman says:

    Fifi, go back to playing Call Of Doodie.

  9. oiaohm says:

    Absolutely not. Russia was losing heavily. They lost almost all their industries with German’s invasion. If it was not for the lend-lease, Russia may have never won the war. It even started with British lend-lease that, despite much smaller than US’s, had a vital role to support the eroding Red Army.

    This is true and untrue. Russia lost a lot of ground vehicle production. Russia had not lost all their industries. The lend-lease allowed Russia to focus on rebuilding their air-force what they had lost basically all of because the aircraft designs Russia had at start of world war II was basically completely worthless in a dogfight.

    http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

    Lend lease to Russia had also ended before 1944 other than repayments. So by the time USA gets the nuke Russia is back on its feet and is able to fight very hard.

    Solviet mobile artillery, can be attributed as an advantage Russians had. It was built on… US trucks.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher
    Part lie the first versions are trailers. Also you are forgeting the ZiS-? trucks the Russian ones. The majority of Katyusha Rocket Launchers produced were complete Russian things trucks and all. US trucks with Katyusha system put on top was a fast way to get volume produced. Also at end of war the ZiS versions of the Katyusha stayed in service due to parts supply being ensured and the US truck using versions end up in museum displays leading to the mistake in numbers about the Katyusha as more display piece being USA truck based means people get the wrong idea about the the numbers produced.

    Until the land-lease, Robert, the Red Army had no vehicles to transport the troops. Only horses.
    Also not true there was a reason why Russia did not use vehicles in the winter months as much. Something got from the USA fixed a problem. Germans found out that why Russia were using horses was the fuel, water and oil could set solid in the Russia winter. The big assistance was not land-lease but antifreeze solutions.

    So before the lend-lease Red Army had vehicles to transport troops but they would not work dependably due to weather so they were using horses that worked for the majority. The lend-lease without antifreeze technology would have been worthless as it would have been just adding more paper weights to the Russian army.

    Russia mostly defeated Germany by weather. So let the German gain ground to be in the areas of Russia with savage killing cold. This plan comes at a cost of access to mines.

    Russians keep deserting to Germans until the very end of the war.
    Deaf Spy over 2 million Russian soldiers were ordered to desert to the German side in World War II. Not deserting of free will but order by commanders to-do so.

    This is a very simple plan you enemy supply route is stressed add more people it will be even more stressed. This is historic usage method of the Russia winter.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Winter
    Kill you enemy by eating them out of house and home by pretending to be ally.

    USA really could not understand why Russian commanders would order forces to desert but it makes total tactical sense.

    Russia was playing a game plan that has been played repeatability out in history that always lead to Russia winning in the end and the attacking being destroyed.

    One of the big things the desert forces with horse created delay as well as left the vehicles free to empty out the warehouses of food stores and other supplies that the German were depending on capturing as well.

    The reality is more Germans died on the Russian front due to weather directly or supply issues caused by weather than to armed engagements. So without lend lease the odds were that Russians working with nature and deserting strategy would have won in the end. Just would have taken many more years. So did Germany ever stand a chance of winning the Russia front most like no.

  10. Ivan says:

    1 million Russians fought on the side of the Germans

    Sure, the German army were generally held to be liberators by the people right up until the Einsatzgruppen did their thing. Even after ’42 it was a devils bargain of who did you want raping your daughter, the Einsatzgruppen or the NKVD as both would just as soon shoot you.

  11. Deaf Spy says:

    Robert, perhaps you will someday read your own source to the end, before you keep talking non-sense. The rushed production was of low quality, and Germans, after a brief initial shock, managed to find a way to destroy T-34s in score. Katyusha, the Solviet mobile artillery, can be attributed as an advantage Russians had. It was built on… US trucks.

    The land-lease contract for USSR was for 11 billions USD, which is equal to 140 billion USD today. That included guns, tanks (yes, tanks), train engines, ammunitions, explosives, clothes, boots, airplanes, ships, cars, trucks, and resources: food, metals, oil. The land-lease covered about 1/3 of all explosives, used by USSR in the whole war, and 50% of the copper and aluminium used by USSR’s industry during the war.

    Until the land-lease, Robert, the Red Army had no vehicles to transport the troops. Only horses.

    And please stare us the crap about Russians motivation. 1 million Russians fought on the side of the Germans, Robert (https://inforesist.org/eto-my-to-fashisty-russkie-na-sluzhbe-tretego-rejxa-i-ss/). Russians keep deserting to Germans until the very end of the war.

  12. Ivan wrote, “Quite a feat given their manufacturing had been pushed behind the Urals.”

    Nope. Battle of Stalingrad. There was a factory there that operated for quite a while.

  13. Ivan says:

    Russians were fighting in tanks in the afternoon that were built in the morning.

    Quite a feat given their manufacturing had been pushed behind the Urals. Care to try again with a different hyperbole to save face in the argument?

  14. dougman wrote, “the Germans were within 10 mile’s of Moscow in November 1941 and on December 7 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, it was the Russians lucky day.”

    I doubt USA entry had much effect on the Eastern Front before 1943 or so when USA’s airforce ramped up considerably. It was just too far from USA to matter much. USA’s first major action was in north Africa, then Italy, then France. Italy did attract some attention from Germany. North Africa, not so much. USA did supply a lot of rifles and such that came in by sea but the real war-fighting was done by Russians with Russian machinery. Russia is a big country and they were motivated by the invasion. Their effort was many times greater than USA on land. USA did contribute a lot of shipping but that was a very long link. Russians were fighting in tanks in the afternoon that were built in the morning.

  15. dougman says:

    “never reached” should be defined, but the Germans were within 10 mile’s of Moscow in November 1941 and on December 7 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, it was the Russians lucky day.

    Germany wanted no parts of America, the majority of Americans wants to stay out of the war. Just like 9/11, the catalyst tipped the scale.

  16. Deaf Spy says:

    Russia having taken on Germany and won almost singlehandedly. Russia was making its own tanks, artillery and planes and was easily making up for losses in men, material and supplies. While supplies from USA/Canada helped some they were just a trickle compared to Russia’s total needs.

    Absolutely not. Russia was losing heavily. They lost almost all their industries with German’s invasion. If it was not for the lend-lease, Russia may have never won the war. It even started with British lend-lease that, despite much smaller than US’s, had a vital role to support the eroding Red Army.

    Robert, perhaps you should read some history before making a total fool of yourself.

  17. Ivan says:

    USA was keeping UK afloat, for instance, supplying shipping, war material, etc. Pearl Harbour was not the trigger but the last straw.

    No, Bob, the USA was neutral and was doing business with and within Germany until war was officially declared. You recall all of the arguments you’ve lost about IBM? Why the sudden shift on caring for civilian populations?

  18. oiaohm wrote, “a load B-29 could out run a Yak 9 aircraft that was the standard Russian air defence aircraft from 1942-1946.”

    untrue

    Yak-9 could reach 30K feet and nearly double the speed of the bomber. That’s why escorts would have been needed to reliably deliver at long range. No bomber of WWII vintage was immune to attack by fighters. Even the biggest and best-armed could always be brought down one way or another. I’ve seen images of WWII bombers pushed out of formation so badly they were struck by friendly bombs/fire, suicide attacks, and of course the ME-262 just cut them up but Hitler was not fond of fighters… The best defence the bombers had against ME-262 was to have Allied fighters attack ME-262 on the ground or at takeoff/landing.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson you missed that a load B-29 could out run a Yak 9 aircraft that was the standard Russian air defence aircraft from 1942-1946.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-9

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress_variants#B-29B
    Something that is always overlooked when B-29 dropped bombs on Japan
    Since fighter opposition was minimal over Japan in late 1944
    Yes the Japan air-defence was basically busted. The answer why is not that great for the USA.
    https://www.awm.gov.au/unit/U59366/
    Of course the name of the unit that job was to break the Japan air defences is always overlooked.

    Yes Australian No. 1 Squadron was the one who picked up the Japan ships on route to Pearl Harbour also its Australian No. 1 Squadron who cleared the Japan air defence out of the way of the USA B-29 bombers so they could bomb Japan.

    This is the problem with anyone suggesting the idea of B-29 against Russia. Where was the air defence escorts going to come from and where was the years for attacks to reduce the functional airfields that Japan had suffered before nukes were dropped. Japan by 1945 was basically a sitting duck with a air defence system fairly much reduced to flak. Russia 1945 fully functional air-defence system with everything. So what worked against Japan attempted against Russia straight away would have been absolute failure. You would have been looking at least 2 to 3 years of attacks to break down Russia air defences before a nuke could be got close to a city.

    Just because you have a weapon does not mean it any use. You could say taking a early nuke to Russia would like taking a pocket knife to a baseball bat fight. You need smaller faster and more flexible bombers at first to strip away the air defence before a B-29 is any major use with limited weapon supply. After the bombing of Darwin Australia was very persistent to make sure Japan had no possibility of doing that again. That persistent attack against means to launch and supply aircraft stripped away Japan air defences.

  20. dougman wrote, “you will be telling us that Russians had jets stashed away and nuclear technology was stolen from them.”

    No need. The Russians could easily copy/improve on German/British jets and they had a spy in the Manhattan Project, Fuchs. The MIG-9 introduced in 1946 had a ceiling of 44000ft and a speed nearly three times that of the B-29. The later MIG-15 could reach 50K ft. A B-29 was actually shot down by a MIG-15 in 1950.

  21. Ivan wrote, “the USA did not go to war in Europe because civilians were being slaughtered”.

    You do remember what WWII was all about, eh? Germany and Japan were slaughtering civilians around the world, thinking they were tough and everyone else were inferior races etc. USA was committed to entering the battle long before Pearl Harbour was attacked. USA was keeping UK afloat, for instance, supplying shipping, war material, etc. Pearl Harbour was not the trigger but the last straw. USA had a bunch of aircraft carriers at Pearl in 1941. They were there largely because of the expectation of war. Fortunately they were not in the harbour on Dec. 7 and the Japanese did not send a third wave attack to take out more infrastructure so the attack mostly triggered the war rather than finished it.

  22. Ivan says:

    You do recall that USA, Canada, India, Australia and a bunch of others went to Europe to settle things when Germany did just that?

    No, Bob, the USA did not go to war in Europe because civilians were being slaughtered. We went to war in Europe because Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan.

    You should really stick to expounding the virtues of linux on ARM, it’s where your comedic talents are best served.

  23. oiaohm says:

    http://www.astronautix.com/r/russia-earlisticmissiles.html

    Deaf Spy not quite. USA had developed the Nuke and Russians had the delivery system. That was the checkmate. Russians had not allocated full force to fighting Germany.

    If it wasn’t for the lend-lease, USSR would have had very, very hard times against Germany. USA sent USSR clothes, boots, oil, gas, trucks… The famous Russian Katyusha is built on a US truck.
    This was smart. By doing this this got the Russians USA tech and saved on their own resource consume.

    HAH!…The B29 had a range of 5600 miles and Russia is <4000 nautical miles in length, so it takes no stretch of the imagination that a few B29's could easily accomplish the goal of bombing a few cities. Stalin would have easily been defeated and agreed to our terms. In doing so, there would never have been a cold war.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

    Pays to read the history USA had lost 4 B29 aircraft in world war II into Russian hands. 3 were fully functional 1945. So Russia bombing USA cities with USA aircraft was 100 percent possible also B29 bombers entering Russian engagement airspace was entering airspace of a air-force that had practised engaging them and knew all the B29 weaknesses.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Forces#Early_World_War_II_aviation_failures
    Yes early on World War II Soviet airforce was week by the end of World War II this has changed so the idea of a B29 bomber entering Russia airspace and make it is a total joke of a idea. Remember even in 1944 if a B29 entered Russia airspace it would be forced to land and be captured.

    Sorry the Russia knew about USA Nuke weapon development and the delivering system and in 1944 had already placed standing orders preventing the B29 from flying anywhere near their cities due to the program. So dougman Russians had thought of your stupid idea and already countered it before the USA could even attempt it.

    Yes Russia had milked the USA for as much in resources as they could get claiming to be ally but this had allowed Russia to rebuild its defences.

    Also the attack on japan depended on the Australian modified Lockheed Hudson bomber were used to thin out Japan air defence to let the B29s with nukes in.

    The thing is 1 Australia Hudson was taking up 10 Japanese zero aircraft. To give an idea how extreme the modifications to the Hudson were it was possible to fly Australian Hudson backwards and even land them backwards. Yes fly forwards or backwards at top speed. The history of Australia taking a USA aircraft and stripping the controls out and fitting new set starts with the Hudson.

    After all the modifications the Australian modifications to the Hudson the result was an bomber size aircraft that could out turn and out climb a zero. USA only had stock Hudsons. USA really did not have a long range effective fighter bomber of their own in 1945 depending on Australia version at the time. USA to have a suitable escort aircraft in USA air-force you are talking 1948. Attacking Russia with B29 you are missing the escort aircraft as well for a large enough time that the rules have changed badly.

  24. dougman says:

    Now, you have surely gone off the deep end. You are arguing over irrelevant things that never transpired to begin with. I swear it seems Fifi has infected you or something. Next you will be telling us that Russians had jets stashed away and nuclear technology was stolen from them.

  25. dougman wrote, “The B29 had a range of 5600 miles and Russia is <4000 nautical miles in length”.

    Wikipedia: 3,250 mi

    Oh, and yes, even the crude early fighters the Russians made could catch the B-29 at altitude as they plodded along. Ceiling was within 300 feet, easy gun-range… They weren’t like the Japanese who had run out of planes. USA and others had also donated many capable fighters to harass the Germans. Later versions could have swarmed all over B-29s. The Russians had thousands which exceeded the speed and matched the ceilings of B-29s. At the end of the war they also had superior fighters in great numbers.

    Sure, they could have risked a lot by coming at Russia from several directions but a one-way trip is very risky business. Do you really think USA would have risked $billion weapons that way? The chance of one falling into Russian hands would be pretty high. In the meantime, the Russians could have taken half of Europe on a weekend. Everyone just wanted the war to end.

  26. dougman says:

    “USA had a limited stock and production-capacity for the critical materials. Just the test-shots put a severe dent in their stocks. They did their test-shots as soon as they had sufficient stock not after building up a stockpile.”

    LOL, starting to sound like Fifi. Well, you can argue over quantities all you want, but I think TOP SECRET transcripts say otherwise.

    http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/25/weekly-document-the-third-shot-and-beyond-1945/

    http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1945-Hull-and-Seaman-Third-Shot.pdf

    “Further, what the Hell would you have the USA bomb?”

    Major Russian cities to start. Duh…

    “Their bombs were tiny by modern standards and the Russians would barely have noticed a few strikes.”

    So? 15 and 21KT is all it took for Japan. This is why I stated that holding Stalin hostage and forcing him to surrender to America would have been easy to do, especially after a few bombs are dropped.

    “Russia was so huge that they built beyond the range of bombers or the Germans would have taken them out much earlier.”

    HAH!…The B29 had a range of 5600 miles and Russia is <4000 nautical miles in length, so it takes no stretch of the imagination that a few B29's could easily accomplish the goal of bombing a few cities. Stalin would have easily been defeated and agreed to our terms. In doing so, there would never have been a cold war.

  27. dougman wrote, “the atomic bombs made after the strikes on Japan, would have been ready for use around middle August, with three more in September and a further three in October.”

    USA had a limited stock and production-capacity for the critical materials. Just the test-shots put a severe dent in their stocks. They did their test-shots as soon as they had sufficient stock not after building up a stockpile. They had one or two nuclear reactors and one cyclotron supplying their needs. They had to break into Fort Knox to build their calutrons. After a year of production they had produced only 88kg of weapons-grade Uranium. In the next six months another ton was produced but by then Europe had been carved up and the boys were going home. In 1946 the calutrons were shut down in favour of gaseous diffusion, another of the multiple means of production.

    Further, what the Hell would you have the USA bomb? Their bombs were tiny by modern standards and the Russians would barely have noticed a few strikes. Much of Russia all the way to Moscow was already destroyed but Russia was so huge that they built beyond the range of bombers or the Germans would have taken them out much earlier.

  28. Deaf Spy wrote, “Russia was anything but a war-machine”, despite Russia having taken on Germany and won almost singlehandedly. Russia was making its own tanks, artillery and planes and was easily making up for losses in men, material and supplies. While supplies from USA/Canada helped some they were just a trickle compared to Russia’s total needs. Russia dropped the ball early on but they rolled up the Germans like a carpet from 1944 onward. Germany put many times the resources to fighting the Eastern Front than the Western because otherwise the war would have been over a year sooner. USA could eventually have taken out Hitler with a nuke but the Russians did it first.

  29. Deaf Spy says:

    Russia was a raging war-machine by 1945.

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

    Robert, are you so illiterate in modern history, too, just like you are in IT architectures?

    By 1945, Robert, Russia was anything but a war-machine. Its army was undersupplied in every account possible. If it wasn’t for the lend-lease, USSR would have had very, very hard times against Germany. USA sent USSR clothes, boots, oil, gas, trucks… The famous Russian Katyusha is built on a US truck.

  30. oiaohm says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project#Soviet_intelligence_management_in_Manhattan_Project
    Small supply? Bahahahaha.. the atomic bombs made after the strikes on Japan, would have been ready for use around middle August, with three more in September and a further three in October. We could have kept on going. The will of Stalin would have been broken easily.
    Idiot. dougman. Russia let the USA develop the nuke and stole all the research data.

    There is a reason why USA Nukes and Russia Nukes by design are almost identical they come out of the Manhattan Project documents and experiments. There is one overlooked fact is when Russia started making nukes they could make them 4 times faster than the USA.

    Now why was Russia so slow to make the nuke read down they had an uranium ore basically Germany had invaded Russia source of uranium. So if Germany had not invalided particular countries Russia could have been the first country to drop a nuke. Also there is a problem the first documented dirty bomb design is 1910 being Russian. So USA might have had nukes and Russia would have still made a mess using conventional weapons enchanted with radioactive materials so no one was going to win that battle.

    1910 Russia designs basically would have seen nuke city remains being used as ammo to fire against enemy. Like the disease ridden corpses of old. Nukes first generation nukes against Russia before they had nukes was not even a safe plan as highly radio active material is ammo for enhancing Russia existing stoke pile of conventional weapons.

    Neutron bomb was researched into due get around this check mate of using a nuke and having the waste it has caused fired back.

    Japan is small place that really did not have the land area to cope with nuke strikes let alone consider using nuke weapon waste as ammo. Russia is a totally different problem.

  31. dougman says:

    “Russia was a raging war-machine by 1945. The Germans couldn’t even slow them down. The Russians conscripted ~30 million soldiers and still could afford ~10million losses and still far out-number USAian forces.”

    Patton wanted to not just take his three brigades, but link up with the Wermacht, fighting on the eastern front and drive right into Moscow.

    “I doubt even USA’s small supply of nukes could have held back the Russians if USA drew them into a fight.”

    Small supply? Bahahahaha.. the atomic bombs made after the strikes on Japan, would have been ready for use around middle August, with three more in September and a further three in October. We could have kept on going. The will of Stalin would have been broken easily.

    “Both USA and Russia were tired of fighting by May 1945”

    LOL, oh yea sure, if you say so. We could have gone on building massive amounts of what have you and supplying hundreds of thousands of men overseas for years to come. Stalin could have easily been kidnapped at the Potsdam conference and held hostage, forcing Russia to either surrender completely to USA or continue fighting, while we nuke them into submission.

  32. dougman wrote, “America should have kept the entire European sector for themselves, then took on Russia while it was at its weakest.”

    “weakest”? Russia was a raging war-machine by 1945. The Germans couldn’t even slow them down. The Russians conscripted ~30 million soldiers and still could afford ~10million losses and still far out-number USAian forces. I doubt even USA’s small supply of nukes could have held back the Russians if USA drew them into a fight. Both USA and Russia were tired of fighting by May 1945 or we might have seen “Greater Russian” reaching all the way to UK by 1947 or so…

  33. oiaohm says:

    http://usuncut.com/world/syrian-refugees-to-weapons/
    Does Syria produces ammo and arms in volume the answer is no. Every bullet and bomb used in Syria is imported into Syria by someone.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-unconventional-weapon-in-syria-wheat/2015/12/18/781a0ae0-9cf4-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html?utm_term=.b729aef86db6

    This is the next thing its the control of food that most of the war is over. Lets say we swapped arms for food aid.

    You are delusional, if you believe that Assad or Syria gives two shits about either of our countries.
    You have that badly wrong as normal dougman. Assad government interference in UN processes when Australia was dealing with East Timor is well and truly documented smaller country. So Syria population might not give a stuff but Assad group does worry about anything that can give their populations ideas how more open government could work. So Assad would be helpful to those wanting freedoms to fail as this makes him look better.

    Do you honestly think that Assad, Alleppo or Syria would be concerned about USA or Canada if either were to have a civil war?
    Yes dougman repeated the mistake twice. The interference by Assad in the East Timor processes is a reason to be rid of him. There are 20 other UN documented examples to Assad doing stuff outside Syria all that would lead to less civil rights in those countries.

    Its one thing to be a dictator is another thing to be a dictator that party cares about global option as Assad does and does not want to change himself but want to change the world to suit.

    Dougman there were other dictators you could have chosen who keep there will for lack of freedom inside their own boarders the catch is Assad not one of those.

    Cold war was also stupidity stacking arms up in the hands of untrustworthy people now we are dealing with some of the fall out and still have not learnt anything.

    Think about it if a bullet cost 1000 dollars each instead of the current 0.30 cents a round you would be a lot more careful how many you shot. The problem is it cheaper to buy bullet shoot a person to get food than what it is to go and buy the food yourself.

  34. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Imagine, the United States made up of 150+ nation states, instead of just fifty. All under the protection of the constitution and our laws.”

    Nice fishing bait, Dougie…

  35. dougman says:

    You are delusional, if you believe that Assad or Syria gives two shits about either of our countries.

    Regarding WW2, America should have kept the entire European sector for themselves, then took on Russia while it was at its weakest. Once complete, the take over of the entire Middle East before the oil-boom would be easy peasy.

    In doing so, we would have never had a Cold War and all the stupid problems in the Middle East.

    Imagine, the United States made up of 150+ nation states, instead of just fifty. All under the protection of the constitution and our laws.

  36. kurkosdr wrote, “if you think your country should make it their primary mission to remove every dictator strongman in every middle-eastern country and replace them with an equally strong (or strong enough) democracy in order to keep the desert pirates in order, then you are a fool.”

    To some extent people get the government they deserve. Dictators don’t need mass incarceration and torture of innocents to gain or to stay in power. When they do we should take them out. It’s the right thing to do. The number of such tyrants is tiny and cleaning them up would be a useful exercise for our idling militaries. Not taking them out risks much greater conflagrations like world war or regional war. Those bigger wars are bad for everyone. It’s practical to preempt them.

  37. dougman wrote, “Do you honestly think that Assad, Alleppo or Syria would be concerned about USA or Canada if either were to have a civil war?”

    Yes, particularly if one side were massacring civilians. You do recall that USA, Canada, India, Australia and a bunch of others went to Europe to settle things when Germany did just that?

    During an actual uncivil war in USA, Europe did try to get involved but were rejected.

  38. dougman says:

    “Nonsense. We are human. We care about other humans. What would you do if Assad were bombing NYC, or Toronto back into the Stone Age? Why should you do any less for Aleppo?”

    Your illogical is stupid.

    Do you honestly think that Assad, Alleppo or Syria would be concerned about USA or Canada if either were to have a civil war? If they become an ISIS stronghold so be it, just don’t cross the wall.

    You remind me of the sissified flower children of the 60s. You are the right age though, but going around singing kumbaya, hugging trees and wishing everyone well, will never do anything.

  39. Ivan says:

    Why do you think the civil war started in the beginning?

    Because people wanted to use linux on ARM, Assad wasn’t having any of it.

  40. kurkosdr says:

    Now, to be precise, if you think your country should make it their primary mission to remove every dictator strongman in every middle-eastern country and replace them with an equally strong (or strong enough) democracy in order to keep the desert pirates in order, then you are a fool.

    In reality, dictators are removed when they aren’t useful to the US anymore from a “strategic” (aka oil and gas) viewpoint. Assad made the mistake of not allowing Saudi Arabia to pass their pipelines through Syrian soil, and so he had to be removed (according to the Saudis). And the US played along being the nice friends of the Saudi regime they are. Russia however doesn’t want any new competitors in that tiny “supplying Europe with gas” market, so they support Assad. That is all. It doesn’t have to do with bad guys, good guys, poor little desert pirates (aka Al-Nusra and ISIS) fighting for independence from bad Assad or anything like that. It is all about the pipelines. Stop trying to put a moralistic spin on either side of this proxy war when there is none.

  41. kurkosdr says:

    You think anything good will come if Assad wins? Why do you think the civil war started in the beginning? Refugee streams will only increase if Assad wins. He will run a skeleton of a country with a minority of the population supporting him and being armed. That is fertile ground for the murdering bastards, Daesh.

    You mean like Libya had less ISIS when Kadaffi was removed? Oh wait, it had more. You seem to suffer from the illusion that all those desert pirates that are endemic to the middle east will somehow allow a democracy to flourish if the strongman (Assad) is removed. Well, they won’t, they will attempt to become a worse version of Assad. Just like it happened in Libya, where they became a worse version of Kadaffi. So maybe a strongman is needed to keep them in order, and if he is a dictator, so be it.

  42. dougman wrote, “None of this concerns either the U.S. or Canada.”

    Nonsense. We are human. We care about other humans. What would you do if Assad were bombing NYC, or Toronto back into the Stone Age? Why should you do any less for Aleppo?

  43. kurkosdr wrote, “Assuming the US goes with the PogPlan, what happens after Assad loses?”

    You think anything good will come if Assad wins? Why do you think the civil war started in the beginning? Refugee streams will only increase if Assad wins. He will run a skeleton of a country with a minority of the population supporting him and being armed. That is fertile ground for the murdering bastards, Daesh.

  44. kurkosdr says:

    Who cares. Build a damn wall around the country and shoot anyone that crosses it.

    None of this concerns either the U.S. or Canada. Perhaps You should be more concerned over Albertans being out of work.

    This. But..

    Assuming the US goes with the PogPlan, what happens after Assad loses? Does Syria become a place for ISIS camps like Libya? Have anything better to propose? Even if the Kurds get some territory, what will happen to the rest of the territory? Fall in ISIS and Al-Nusra “moderate” (bahaha) hands and become another Libya?

  45. dougman says:

    Who cares. Build a damn wall around the country and shoot anyone that crosses it.

    None of this concerns either the U.S. or Canada. Perhaps You should be more concerned over Albertans being out of work.

    http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/alberta-jobless-rate-at-highest-level-in-22-years-calgarys-unemployment-highest-in-country

Leave a Reply