Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Corbyn equates Russian carpet-bombing of civilians w/ US targeted striked on ISIS

Scroll to see replies

You highly doubt it because you don't understand Syria and you don't understand Middle Eastern politics and the American foreign policy process. Just being cynical and assuming everything is a conspiracy is not a substitute for actual knowledge and intelligence, though many people these days seem to think it does.

What would the United States gain from bombing a few dozen Syrian troops? Do you really imagine they think in such small terms? Such a move makes absolutely no difference to the overall picture, it just complicates the United States relationship and earns them some bad press. If the president makes a determination to attack Syria, it would be far more devastating than a stray JDAM killing a few Syrian soldiers.

No I just don't instantly believe everything America says.I don't believe its as simple as good guys vs bad guys.The russians and syrians are not the bad guys.Or at least not the obvious bad guys.All choices in syria are bad.Qatar and saudi arabia are known to have been funding isis.They are both allies of the USA.Yes I am skeptical of what the US says. When the USA bombs a hospital,its just an accident.Or when the UK sides with saudi arabia when they bomb a funeral and say they can investigate themselves.Yet when russia bombs an aid convoy its instantly a war crime.Or putin is the next hitler and wants to start world war 3. Western media is incredibly biased and doesn't show the whole story.

Reply 41

The Suppressed

Rebels use civilians as shields. They hide in civilian areas making it hard for the Syrian army or Russia to defeat them.

Don't be dumb to believe that Assad would kill his own people.

ASSAD IS A SYRIAN

Russia has been invited by their government

The West are there illegally

The moderate rebels are jihadists, many foreign born

Reply 42

ccmar15

Original post by AlexanderHam

It's debunked by what actually happened. The US did not grab the oil for themselves, it went straight into the custody of the Iraqi government as it was formed and every dollar rendered from those oil wells went into Iraqi government coffers. The US didn't even get the oil contracts either, the biggest contracts went to the Chinese; in fact, the ceremony at which the Iraqi Oil Minister signed a huge contract with the Chinese state oil company was protected by American troops. The US could have exerted extreme pressure to get those contracts, but they didn't; it goes to show you what their priorities were around that period of 2003 to 2011 (their priority was to stabilise the country, defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the old Ba'athists, and the Shi'a troublemakers like Moqtada al-Sadr. The question of oil contracts was pretty far from their mind)

If the Americans wanted Iraqi oil, Iraq would have been very happy to sell it to them. Iraq was already selling oil through the UN Oil for Food programme. The reason that oil was relevant (and why Wolfowitz mentioned it) was that oil made Saddam Hussein powerful and it made him much more capable of causing trouble in the region than other powers that don't possess such resources. The Americans weren't thinking of it in terms of "Let's go in and take their oil" or "Let's invade them so we can buy their oil", both propositions are ridiculous and completely debunked by what actually happened post-invasion

Thanks. I wasn't trying to prod holes or anything- just genuinely interested. Cheers for the reply. You seem to know what you're on about.