Originally Posted by
Niall_Quinn
Your latest alteration of the record designed to suit your own argument.
Nowhere did I say Trump should support Putin and Assad. I said he should cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS and I also said he should avoid conflict with Russia for what should be obvious reasons. You know, you are behaving a bit like the mainstream media and how they covered Trump during the election. Take a word, spin a sentence, write the story.
Then you progress with a whole moral piece based on the assertion you created. Then a wink and a condescending inversion, a desperate plea for allies to dive in presumably for safety in numbers, more smilies, then a (I assume serious) attempt to equate the ISIS situation with Blair and Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq which I'm guessing you borrowed from one of my own responses, suitably inverting the concept and taking it out of context.
But the last part seems to be both related to the debate and a fair reflection of what I have said. Thank you for that.
Yes. Correct. We should work with the government of Syria and work with the Russians to destroy ISIS. OR, my preference, negotiate with Russia for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria. It is imperative we stop funding and arming ISIS and equally imperative we stop attacking the one force on the ground that will ultimately finish ISIS off, assuming we don't want our own forces stuck in the region for decades. It is US intervention and subterfuge that has elevated ISIS beyond rabble status in the first place, the very reason why ISIS now has to be driven back and defeated. There are some indications the Obama regime has realised this over the last few months and may indeed have changed their strategy from attacking Assad, in some instances at least, to containing ISIS. Could this change have anything to do with the warmonger Clinton having left State to focus on higher office? Speculation but an interesting coincidence.
The aim I believe we should be pursuing is to avoid conflict with Russia. The aim currently being pursued, one you seem to support by implication, seems to have no purpose that is achievable. If we look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria it is obvious these grand plans for regime change have produced the reverse outcomes, assuming the original intent was not to create chaos and drag Russia into conflict. But that latter possibility, while seeming insane, may well be the true agenda of the crazies dictating US foreign policy. Perhaps they have equated the situation now with Afghanistan in the 80s where the likes of Brzezinski takes credit for creating and arming terror groups, calling them freedom fighters and setting them against the Russians. This, he feels, ultimately led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. He boasts about his achievements in his book, The Grand Chess Board. You can see the mentality of these lunatics just from the title of their confessions. Of course he'll never tell you that therein lay the seed for Al'Qaida. That part is conveniently glossed over.
So skipping over all your fluster and bluster and going straight to the one relevant point you did raise, you now have my answer. So can I ask, what is your view on possible solutions to the problem as it stands?
Removing Putin and Assad from your wording doesn't soften your position. And you say I'm worse than the media! I never once proposed to know the answer to all this and what I think will work is irrelevant to the debate. Stop deflecting. Reflect on what you've said about Clinton and then think again the argument you're presenting.
Reply With Quote
