3 ms·

Syria was invaded by NATO?

vkou 10y ago
The Syrian civil war was initially a conflict between Assad, and the Free Syrian Army, into which NATO poured munitions, training, and 'volunteers' from the Lybian civil war, letting it blossomed into a multi-directional hellscape, involving Assad, the FSA, Kurdish groups, and notably, Al Qaeda's Syrian branch, Al Nusra (Which, ironically, is considered by the West to be a 'moderate' group in the conflict. We've done a good job of bombing the people they've been fighting against.) Soon after that, ISIS, the estranged lovechild of the Iraqi civil war enters the picture. No, Syria wasn't invaded by NATO - instead, NATO poured, and continues to pour oil on that fire, because instead of making the situation better, it would rather fight a proxy war with Russia. Despite our best efforts at supporting the rebel groups, and bombing Assad, he's still in power. Given that, I think it's reasonable to conclude that had the conflict been left to resolve itself, he would have won fairly quickly - or at least, by now, most of the country would be under his control, as opposed to a five-way horror-show. We'd also probably be seeing a lot fewer beheading videos on Twitter. NATO's perspective on the whole conflict, start to end, was not humanitarian - but rather as a question of "What can we do to stick it to the Russians, and topple Assad?"
- tdkl 10y ago
  War is a racket.
- lisivka 10y ago
  So, you are basically propose to watch war with beer and popcorn instead of trying to help. It's looks like you have East mentality. Quick check: what is more valuable: one men or one hundred?
  - vkou 10y ago
    You are mistaken in your belief that arming the losing side in a civil war 'helps' anything but prolonging it. What those people need is humanitarian aid, not billions of dollars in Tomahawk missiles and AR-15s.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      Even if evil will win, it must pay fair price for every human life it takes. Otherwise, value of human life will be too low. You are not passed my quick check, so I assume that difference between us is fundamental. See [1] if you want to understand West. [1] http://www.justiceharvard.org/ http://www.justiceharvard.org/

vkou 10y ago

The Syrian civil war was initially a conflict between Assad, and the Free Syrian Army, into which NATO poured munitions, training, and 'volunteers' from the Lybian civil war, letting it blossomed into a multi-directional hellscape, involving Assad, the FSA, Kurdish groups, and notably, Al Qaeda's Syrian branch, Al Nusra (Which, ironically, is considered by the West to be a 'moderate' group in the conflict. We've done a good job of bombing the people they've been fighting against.) Soon after that, ISIS, the estranged lovechild of the Iraqi civil war enters the picture. No, Syria wasn't invaded by NATO - instead, NATO poured, and continues to pour oil on that fire, because instead of making the situation better, it would rather fight a proxy war with Russia. Despite our best efforts at supporting the rebel groups, and bombing Assad, he's still in power. Given that, I think it's reasonable to conclude that had the conflict been left to resolve itself, he would have won fairly quickly - or at least, by now, most of the country would be under his control, as opposed to a five-way horror-show. We'd also probably be seeing a lot fewer beheading videos on Twitter. NATO's perspective on the whole conflict, start to end, was not humanitarian - but rather as a question of "What can we do to stick it to the Russians, and topple Assad?"

tdkl 10y ago
War is a racket.
lisivka 10y ago
So, you are basically propose to watch war with beer and popcorn instead of trying to help. It's looks like you have East mentality. Quick check: what is more valuable: one men or one hundred?
- vkou 10y ago
  You are mistaken in your belief that arming the losing side in a civil war 'helps' anything but prolonging it. What those people need is humanitarian aid, not billions of dollars in Tomahawk missiles and AR-15s.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Even if evil will win, it must pay fair price for every human life it takes. Otherwise, value of human life will be too low. You are not passed my quick check, so I assume that difference between us is fundamental. See [1] if you want to understand West. [1] http://www.justiceharvard.org/ http://www.justiceharvard.org/