Is the conflict in Syria turning into a proxy war?

[Tibe]

Yet, the Chinese president feels the need to threaten Taiwan with missiles? And as far as it appears to me, the Chinese elite did almost remove the expansionist ideology in their roots, but in a couple of years now, it kinda appears to be coming back. Ofcourse this just appears to me.

[Kafein]

Yet, the Chinese president feels the need to threaten Taiwan with missiles? And as far as it appears to me, the Chinese elite did almost remove the expansionist ideology in their roots, but in a couple of years now, it kinda appears to be coming back. Ofcourse this just appears to me.

They've always been threatening Taiwan.

[Lt_Anders]

They've always been threatening Taiwan.

And they've always threatened Japan too.

60 years of foreign policy that hasn't changed. Though they have lost their stranglehold over Indochina with Vietnam's severance of ties with China.

[ecorcheur_brokar]

Considering what the Chinese government is, it will definately be chaos wether we provoke it or not. You do realise that in the collapse of the Soviet Union, the majority of the role was still played by foreign intervention and own caused inefficiency and some countries barely got independence? Were extremely close to not getting it even. And it was pretty close to chaos. Kremlins tanks were all over the lands that tried to claim independence and were extremely close to actually fire at the protesters. In Soviet unions case it was just pure luck and covincidence none of it happened. The way you make it sound like "eh, thats a textbook example of what happens when people want to leave peacefully and naturally". You have no idea about what you are talking about. The reason why bloodshed was avoided was thanks to the pressure of the international community and USSR leaders showing that they still have some degree of humanity left in them. The Chinese however, will definately bomb Taiwan to shit before they ever let it be independent. And there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Same applies to the the Middle-East. No way any of those leaders will ever show a degree of humanity. They will bomb their own people.

Hahaha like the USSR had any care of "pressure of the international community" which didn't even exist when the world was divided in two. And the fall of the USSR caused by foreign intervention? didn't know you where tovi's brother. Was it caused by CIA or Illuminatti?

The only cause was its dysfonctionnement that caused the population ressentiment, which all communist leaders had to realise and face it was the end of their dreams. Or else this is the face of those who didn't realise they didn't benefit from the support from enough of their people.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Romanian didn't need any foreign "help" when they really wanted to overthrow him. Just like Europe didn't need a foreign help to have its democratic societies, it just needed time and will.

Wow so much threaten! http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/07/leaders-of-china-taiwan-meet-for-first-time-in-six-decades.html

[Leshma]

Syria secretly sentenced free software developer Bassel Khartabil to death

Assad or ISIS, tyranny remains.

[ecorcheur_brokar]

Now considering middle-east. Suppose we should send troops there and remove Daech and Assad, what should we put instead?

-Another dictatorship? What is the difference with Assad aren't we going back to the point where we started? And putting dictator like we did in Afghanistan leads nowhere since as soon as US troops will withdraw the population will remove Ghani from power

-A democracy? Every time people in middle-east had the choice to elect their leader they choose islmamism.
Iran gave full power to Khomeiny, Egypt elected muslim brotherhood, Gaza voted Hamas, AKP taking power in Turkey, Tunisia elected Ennahadha. So it won't change much, the council of Charia will take power but by democratic means, but we will have spend millions in sending troops there and alienated most of the population.

Then the west will have two choices, try to overthrow him like interventionniste-dummie like you, love to do. And we are back to dictatorship, civil war, and bombings and terrorists attack like in Egypt.

Or we let them be, and either people keep their elected leader like in Iran, which doesn't cause any terrorist attack anymore as either people there are content with their situation either they are angry but against their governement (and not the west). Even if Iran like to runt, they don't do much.

Or people eventually get tired of islmo-politic and stop supporting it, like Tunisia where Ennahadha is losing power, and the desperate terrorist attacks there don't have the support of the population anymore. Finally  with the work of time and peace, you end up with a situation like Senegal.

[Tibe]

....

you know quite little about USSR dont you?

(click to show/hide)

Now considering middle-east. Suppose we should send troops there and remove Daech and Assad, what should we put instead?

-Another dictatorship? What is the difference with Assad aren't we going back to the point where we started? And putting dictator like we did in Afghanistan leads nowhere since as soon as US troops will withdraw the population will remove Ghani from power

-A democracy? Every time people in middle-east had the choice to elect their leader they choose islmamism.
Iran gave full power to Khomeiny, Egypt elected muslim brotherhood, Gaza voted Hamas, AKP taking power in Turkey, Tunisia elected Ennahadha. So it won't change much, the council of Charia will take power but by democratic means, but we will have spend millions in sending troops there and alienated most of the population.

Then the west will have two choices, try to overthrow him like interventionniste-dummie like you, love to do. And we are back to dictatorship, civil war, and bombings and terrorists attack like in Egypt.

Or we let them be, and either people keep their elected leader like in Iran, which doesn't cause any terrorist attack anymore as either people there are content with their situation either they are angry but against their governement (and not the west). Even if Iran like to runt, they don't do much.

Or people eventually get tired of islmo-politic and stop supporting it, like Tunisia where Ennahadha is losing power, and the desperate terrorist attacks there don't have the support of the population anymore. Finally  with the work of time and peace, you end up with a situation like Senegal.

Well I quess the people in Iraq want ISIS to rule them than, dont they? Because clearly the area, that ISIS currently occupies, the previous leaders were kicked out "by the population", as you put it. If thats the case than wtf are we even arguing about. Iraq clearly wants an abomination like that to rule them. ISIS was chosen by the people. 

[Xant]

Now considering middle-east. Suppose we should send troops there and remove Daech and Assad, what should we put instead?

Shouldn't send troops, should send this:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Asheram]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Grytviken]

....

you know quite little about USSR dont you?

Well I quess the people in Iraq want ISIS to rule them than, dont they? Because clearly the area, that ISIS currently occupies, the previous leaders were kicked out "by the population", as you put it. If thats the case than wtf are we even arguing about. Iraq clearly wants an abomination like that to rule them. ISIS was chosen by the people. 

 The large area of territory ISIS occupies includes the eastern part of Syria and the Northwestern part of Iraq. For the last 15 years Syrian Sunni's have been crossing the Iraqi boarder to fight a guerrilla war alongside other Sunni insurgents against the Iraqi government with Assad's blessing. The Iraqi Shias have been fighting these same people for the last 15 years, now they just have a different name and have turned on Assad as well.

   Since Assad allowed his own country to be used as a staging point to cause the coalition and Iraqi government much grief our policy has been hostile against him. He supported this kind of abomination growing on his own territory and enjoyed it as long as it wasn't going after him.

The US was able to create a temporary peace between the Sunni and Shia, which was very difficult to do because of all the outside influence. That all went out the window when the new Iraqi prime minister Maliki (who is a Shia) went out of his way to purge the Iraqi government of all Sunni's he considered a threat. The Iraqi parliament voted for US troops to leave Iraq and with that huge security void he became increasingly paranoid of an imminent uprising (which was liable to happen) but made things worse by just blindly arresting and jailing any Sunni's who he considered a threat and openly accepted Iranian support. So when this uprising did come in the form of ISIS, most Sunni's had already been kicked out of the Iraqi Army and the Shia soldiers had no intention of dying defending what they considered "Sunni" territory.

[Angantyr]

US policy makers also fanned the sectarian violence, though:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/06/el-salvador-iraq-police-squads-washington

[Vovka]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/palestinian-poet-ashraf-fayadh-sentenced-death-by-saudi-court-renouncing-islam-1529763

"religious police" wtf
that country lacks democracy

[Grytviken]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/palestinian-poet-ashraf-fayadh-sentenced-death-by-saudi-court-renouncing-islam-1529763

"religious police" wtf
that country lacks democracy

http://europe.newsweek.com/twice-many-british-muslims-fighting-isis-armed-forces-265865   Does it surprise you?

[Oberyn]

The large area of territory ISIS occupies includes the eastern part of Syria and the Northwestern part of Iraq. For the last 15 years Syrian Sunni's have been crossing the Iraqi boarder to fight a guerrilla war alongside other Sunni insurgents against the Iraqi government with Assad's blessing. The Iraqi Shias have been fighting these same people for the last 15 years, now they just have a different name and have turned on Assad as well.

   Since Assad allowed his own country to be used as a staging point to cause the coalition and Iraqi government much grief our policy has been hostile against him. He supported this kind of abomination growing on his own territory and enjoyed it as long as it wasn't going after him.

The US was able to create a temporary peace between the Sunni and Shia, which was very difficult to do because of all the outside influence. That all went out the window when the new Iraqi prime minister Maliki (who is a Shia) went out of his way to purge the Iraqi government of all Sunni's he considered a threat. The Iraqi parliament voted for US troops to leave Iraq and with that huge security void he became increasingly paranoid of an imminent uprising (which was liable to happen) but made things worse by just blindly arresting and jailing any Sunni's who he considered a threat and openly accepted Iranian support. So when this uprising did come in the form of ISIS, most Sunni's had already been kicked out of the Iraqi Army and the Shia soldiers had no intention of dying defending what they considered "Sunni" territory.

How can you possibly blame the poor muslims for sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing, don't you know the US is 110% responsable? They were literally forced to slaughter each other while calling on their religion and god as justifications (obviously merely as a form of exploitation, all their tribal and religious leaders are cynics who don't really entertain any of these notions beyond what it can do for them politically, only an islamophobe would suggest otherwise). Anyways, it's all obviously a long term plan by the US and their Israeli puppet masters to plunge the middle east into chaos and make muslims suffer, all of this was foreseen and expected, encouraged by the crusaders and zionists every step of the way. The muslims are merely victims, as they always are. 

[Tibe]

Are you going to calm down any time soon Oberyn? You have been in this angry forum crusademode for some time now.