Upload
Login or register

phoenixactual

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:1/27/2013
Last Login:9/03/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#22366
Highest Content Rank:#5621
Highest Comment Rank:#4296
Content Thumbs: 379 total,  1420 ,  1041
Comment Thumbs: 1881 total,  3153 ,  1272
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 36 Content: Peasant → Level 37 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 1% (1/100)
Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:6
Content Views:154966
Times Content Favorited:26 times
Total Comments Made:2170
FJ Points:1965
Favorite Tags: doctor (3) | HORMONES (2) | im (2) | Not (2) | tran (2) | trans (2) | Transgender (2)

latest user's comments

#127 - Let's have a look back at the root cause of the problems ongoi…  [+] (1 reply) 10/28/2015 on Syrian war summed up 0
User avatar
#180 - themarineelite (10/28/2015) [-]
That wasn't America's fault for setting up the boundaries for the Middle East. It was British who decided where the boundaries were. Though the British did plenty of bad shit when they still had colonies.
#113 - Cause, you know, we can totally trust the likes of Putin and h…  [+] (1 reply) 10/27/2015 on Syrian war summed up 0
User avatar
#167 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
I didn't say anything about Putin or Assad being the nicest only that you still believed the mouth-propaganda from Kerry, Cameron, Obama and co. when it came to the syrian gas attack and even thought there were still a moderate rebel group left or a all-syrian group according to the the German intelligence service BND 96% of the rebels are foreigners
#111 - Remember, it took almost a solid year to get them to cooperate…  [+] (1 reply) 10/27/2015 on Syrian war summed up 0
User avatar
#168 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
Well we got ISIS, Kurds, Syrian gov. and the rebels and every rebel group wants Sharia Law .

ISIS -> bat shit crazy
Kurds -> pretty much a wildcard
Rebels -> almost ISIS even gassed thousands of civilians which was blamed without any evidence on Assad
Syrian gov. -> Pretty much stability in that region because of their strict Secular ruling Christian, Jews and other people who would have been discriminated against had it really good under Assad which is why there were so many massacres on Christians by rebels and Kurds don't want to rule over all of Syria

>they're still responsible for some pretty horrific shit
It's war, in WWII you pretty much carpet bombed cities see Dresden bombing until there was nothing left or during the Iraq war the US also destroyed whole civilian building only because there could have been one soldier in it.

The only citation Western media mentions when it come to civilian deaths in Syria is the SOHR syrian observatory for human rights even though western media said that organisation is highly questionable this organisation is basically one dude in his flat in Britain but still use it as a source.

#108 - We caused most of the *********** to begin with. Ever heard o…  [+] (3 replies) 10/27/2015 on Syrian war summed up 0
User avatar
#112 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
We as in who?
#127 - phoenixactual (10/28/2015) [-]
Let's have a look back at the root cause of the problems ongoing currently in the Middle East. Before WWII, the entire region fell under the reign of the Ottoman Empire, which was a surprisingly liberal government, all things considered. Post war, the empire was broken up, and the entire area, regardless of cultural boundaries, was colonized by the victors. Half of Gaza was promised to the planned new Israeli state, with the rights of native people across the region being promised to be upheld. One only needs to look at the way Israel treats the Gaza strip to see how that worked. A coup in Iran, backed by the CIA, upended the democratically elected government in Iran, and the royal family was put back into power, purely to give the US an ally in the middle east. Saudi Arabia, having been left because it was considered to be too barren, was taken by militant Wahabbiism in the power vaccuum left by the fall of the old empire, and began to spread it's influence. The Iranian revolution happened during this spread, assisted by a nation tired of constant western influence, and militant Islam began taking hold in the region, as colonies were released from their parent nations one by one. Further influence over the years spread these feelings of resentment across the region, and dictatorships began to rise. We created the regimes we fought, get it? We created the taliban through training militants in Afghanistan in the '80s, we created modern Iran through the coup in the '60s, we even created ISIS by blindly invading Iraq with no credible intel, and leaving when the job wasn't even half finished. And the majority, every time, voted for the presidents that caused these conflicts with their actions. When I say we, I can honestly say I mean the majority of the American people
User avatar
#180 - themarineelite (10/28/2015) [-]
That wasn't America's fault for setting up the boundaries for the Middle East. It was British who decided where the boundaries were. Though the British did plenty of bad shit when they still had colonies.
#10 - There are plenty of other options, in case you forgot about th…  [+] (3 replies) 10/27/2015 on Syrian war summed up +1
User avatar
#14 - etiennesk (10/27/2015) [-]
Unfortunately the moderate rebels aren't the most apparent option because they've become out of the radar internationally. Trying to aid them is nearly impossible because ISIS is willing to mask themselves as the moderates to get aid intended for their enemies. Most foreign nations have difficulty ensuring that the side they're supporting aren't actually radicals.

Build that on top of the fact that most of the countries which are capable of offering aid are more interested in their own politics than the issue of human rights. Russia wants to help Assad because Putin believes he can manipulate him and wants to have more influence the region for the sake of Russia's benefit. not that that's a bad thing The US government, on the other hand, want the ability to influence the people in that region for their own benefit, and unlike Russia, they don't have an obvious choice. Assad wants power for Assad, which benefits Russia. ISIS wants power for ISIS, which benefits Islamic Extremist Groups. The moderate rebels want power for the Syrian people, which benefits no one except the Syrian people, not the US or most other nations.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the moderate rebels don't actually appeal to any one other than human rights activists and Syrian people, whereas the majority of countries' governments which give aid do so for their own influence, not because it's the ethical or right thing to do. I agree with you, you should never chose the lesser of two evils when there's a possibility for a better offer, but politics overwhelm that.

that, and most Americans and people in democratic countries have come to be preconceived that there are only ever 2 options. Left or Right, Assad or ISIS, Palestine or Israel, Republican or Democrat, etc. The idea that there could be a tertiary option which succeeds more than a duality of choice scares those who have learned to live in a world of black or white.
User avatar
#86 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
The Syrian government was a Soviet/Russian ally since a longer time ago and Russia has several bases on the coast there
User avatar
#11 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
aren't the groups of "moderate rebels" either

A: selling their guns we give them to isis to escape to europe
B: Being bombed to ashes by russia
#8 - neither, you dense ************. There is no lesser of two ev…  [+] (7 replies) 10/27/2015 on Syrian war summed up -2
User avatar
#30 - paddypancake (10/27/2015) [-]
Assad =Thinks about his own safebeing and kills his own people.
ISIS = People who kill all sorts of people they disagree with and who would die to hurt the western world.
User avatar
#9 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
when you're in the middle of backwards ass no where, no one cares about you.

When you're in the middle of backwards ass no where but sit on resources people want, they only care about your gov'ts stability and countries ability to send out those resources. The people in charge of both of those places do whatever it takes to remain in power, no matter the cost, only the second has far more to lose and far more pressure/assistance on them from global politics.

I don't like either, but there aren't any other choices at the moment and since glassing the area isn't an option, pick the lesser evil.
User avatar
#12 - zenler (10/27/2015) [-]
its what u call take over the dammed place by force since the fuckers there arent improving
#10 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
There are plenty of other options, in case you forgot about the moderate rebels that are fighting both ISIS and the current regime. Why choose between two evils, when there's a group that only wants peace out of it?
User avatar
#14 - etiennesk (10/27/2015) [-]
Unfortunately the moderate rebels aren't the most apparent option because they've become out of the radar internationally. Trying to aid them is nearly impossible because ISIS is willing to mask themselves as the moderates to get aid intended for their enemies. Most foreign nations have difficulty ensuring that the side they're supporting aren't actually radicals.

Build that on top of the fact that most of the countries which are capable of offering aid are more interested in their own politics than the issue of human rights. Russia wants to help Assad because Putin believes he can manipulate him and wants to have more influence the region for the sake of Russia's benefit. not that that's a bad thing The US government, on the other hand, want the ability to influence the people in that region for their own benefit, and unlike Russia, they don't have an obvious choice. Assad wants power for Assad, which benefits Russia. ISIS wants power for ISIS, which benefits Islamic Extremist Groups. The moderate rebels want power for the Syrian people, which benefits no one except the Syrian people, not the US or most other nations.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the moderate rebels don't actually appeal to any one other than human rights activists and Syrian people, whereas the majority of countries' governments which give aid do so for their own influence, not because it's the ethical or right thing to do. I agree with you, you should never chose the lesser of two evils when there's a possibility for a better offer, but politics overwhelm that.

that, and most Americans and people in democratic countries have come to be preconceived that there are only ever 2 options. Left or Right, Assad or ISIS, Palestine or Israel, Republican or Democrat, etc. The idea that there could be a tertiary option which succeeds more than a duality of choice scares those who have learned to live in a world of black or white.
User avatar
#86 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
The Syrian government was a Soviet/Russian ally since a longer time ago and Russia has several bases on the coast there
User avatar
#11 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
aren't the groups of "moderate rebels" either

A: selling their guns we give them to isis to escape to europe
B: Being bombed to ashes by russia
#6 - So... In other words, we shoud back the government that used c…  [+] (29 replies) 10/27/2015 on Syrian war summed up +2
User avatar
#128 - deerbeer (10/28/2015) [-]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one actually proved that Asad used chemical weapons. US government said they have evidence, but they couldn't show them in order to not reveal their sources. The incident ended with Asad giving up all the chemical weapons he had, so he can't use them now, even if he wanted.
#129 - phoenixactual (10/28/2015) [-]
You're right, it was never proven. But until the weapons were removed, they consistently remained under Syrian control. And we're stuck between the word of a dictator who kills anybody who disagrees with him, hence the cause of the whole damn civil war, and a bunch of murderous fucks, both trying to say the other side is responsible. The key factor in evidence, at least from our point of view, is the fact that only one side of the conflict had verifiable weapons stores, and it wasn't the group that would become ISIS. We can't trust either side here, there is no lesser of two evils.
#83 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
Its the legitimate government you ASS HOLE
#110 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
It was a legitimate government, until Assad decided to take supreme power over the country, and started ling anybody who disagreed with him. Not to mention the whole "gassing your own civilian population" part, which pretty much negates any remaining legitimacy he could have claimed.
#37 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
The chemical attack was blamed on the rebels www.examiner.com/article/u-s-backed-syrian-rebels-reportedly-massacre-christian-village by UN and witness testimony

Syria destroyed it's chemical weapons stock to prevent US intervention against the Syrian government like Sadam faced in Iraq
#111 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
Remember, it took almost a solid year to get them to cooperate, and even as the UN ships were waiting to remove the chemicals, he still refused to let them dock. Don't try to act like the current regime is somehow valid, they're still responsible for some pretty horrific shit
User avatar
#168 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
Well we got ISIS, Kurds, Syrian gov. and the rebels and every rebel group wants Sharia Law .

ISIS -> bat shit crazy
Kurds -> pretty much a wildcard
Rebels -> almost ISIS even gassed thousands of civilians which was blamed without any evidence on Assad
Syrian gov. -> Pretty much stability in that region because of their strict Secular ruling Christian, Jews and other people who would have been discriminated against had it really good under Assad which is why there were so many massacres on Christians by rebels and Kurds don't want to rule over all of Syria

>they're still responsible for some pretty horrific shit
It's war, in WWII you pretty much carpet bombed cities see Dresden bombing until there was nothing left or during the Iraq war the US also destroyed whole civilian building only because there could have been one soldier in it.

The only citation Western media mentions when it come to civilian deaths in Syria is the SOHR syrian observatory for human rights even though western media said that organisation is highly questionable this organisation is basically one dude in his flat in Britain but still use it as a source.

User avatar
#38 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
>>#37,

themarineelite ,sircool , etiennesk, paddypancake ,

The only people who pinned the gas attacks on the Syrian gov. were USA and other NATO allies
#113 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
Cause, you know, we can totally trust the likes of Putin and his allies
User avatar
#167 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
I didn't say anything about Putin or Assad being the nicest only that you still believed the mouth-propaganda from Kerry, Cameron, Obama and co. when it came to the syrian gas attack and even thought there were still a moderate rebel group left or a all-syrian group according to the the German intelligence service BND 96% of the rebels are foreigners
#21 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
there are backed up resources from several big publications stating that there have been a use of chemical weapons, but there has been 0 proof that it was the government. im pretty sure that it wasnt the government
User avatar
#20 - mephiblis (10/27/2015) [-]
Where da proofs at? Citations and shiet son, do i hefta spell it out fer ya?
User avatar
#171 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
John Kerry said so, that's enough proof
User avatar
#7 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
which evil is better, the one using chemical weapons on its own people, or the one who'd likely use chemical weapons on its own people AND everyone around them?
User avatar
#131 - paranoidmuffin (10/28/2015) [-]
People still believe that Bashar used chem weapons? lol
#23 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
Neither you motherfucker. The Middle East is a Clusterfuck enough, let them murder each other. Or let Russia deal with them
#108 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
We caused most of the clusterfuck to begin with. Ever heard of "don't start something you aren't prepared to finish"?
User avatar
#112 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
We as in who?
#127 - phoenixactual (10/28/2015) [-]
Let's have a look back at the root cause of the problems ongoing currently in the Middle East. Before WWII, the entire region fell under the reign of the Ottoman Empire, which was a surprisingly liberal government, all things considered. Post war, the empire was broken up, and the entire area, regardless of cultural boundaries, was colonized by the victors. Half of Gaza was promised to the planned new Israeli state, with the rights of native people across the region being promised to be upheld. One only needs to look at the way Israel treats the Gaza strip to see how that worked. A coup in Iran, backed by the CIA, upended the democratically elected government in Iran, and the royal family was put back into power, purely to give the US an ally in the middle east. Saudi Arabia, having been left because it was considered to be too barren, was taken by militant Wahabbiism in the power vaccuum left by the fall of the old empire, and began to spread it's influence. The Iranian revolution happened during this spread, assisted by a nation tired of constant western influence, and militant Islam began taking hold in the region, as colonies were released from their parent nations one by one. Further influence over the years spread these feelings of resentment across the region, and dictatorships began to rise. We created the regimes we fought, get it? We created the taliban through training militants in Afghanistan in the '80s, we created modern Iran through the coup in the '60s, we even created ISIS by blindly invading Iraq with no credible intel, and leaving when the job wasn't even half finished. And the majority, every time, voted for the presidents that caused these conflicts with their actions. When I say we, I can honestly say I mean the majority of the American people
User avatar
#180 - themarineelite (10/28/2015) [-]
That wasn't America's fault for setting up the boundaries for the Middle East. It was British who decided where the boundaries were. Though the British did plenty of bad shit when they still had colonies.
#81 - nazo (10/27/2015) [-]
Europe is up there, man
#8 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
neither, you dense motherfucker. There is no lesser of two evils, if Assad is willing to use them against his own people, he's obviously got no problem with using them against others
User avatar
#30 - paddypancake (10/27/2015) [-]
Assad =Thinks about his own safebeing and kills his own people.
ISIS = People who kill all sorts of people they disagree with and who would die to hurt the western world.
User avatar
#9 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
when you're in the middle of backwards ass no where, no one cares about you.

When you're in the middle of backwards ass no where but sit on resources people want, they only care about your gov'ts stability and countries ability to send out those resources. The people in charge of both of those places do whatever it takes to remain in power, no matter the cost, only the second has far more to lose and far more pressure/assistance on them from global politics.

I don't like either, but there aren't any other choices at the moment and since glassing the area isn't an option, pick the lesser evil.
User avatar
#12 - zenler (10/27/2015) [-]
its what u call take over the dammed place by force since the fuckers there arent improving
#10 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
There are plenty of other options, in case you forgot about the moderate rebels that are fighting both ISIS and the current regime. Why choose between two evils, when there's a group that only wants peace out of it?
User avatar
#14 - etiennesk (10/27/2015) [-]
Unfortunately the moderate rebels aren't the most apparent option because they've become out of the radar internationally. Trying to aid them is nearly impossible because ISIS is willing to mask themselves as the moderates to get aid intended for their enemies. Most foreign nations have difficulty ensuring that the side they're supporting aren't actually radicals.

Build that on top of the fact that most of the countries which are capable of offering aid are more interested in their own politics than the issue of human rights. Russia wants to help Assad because Putin believes he can manipulate him and wants to have more influence the region for the sake of Russia's benefit. not that that's a bad thing The US government, on the other hand, want the ability to influence the people in that region for their own benefit, and unlike Russia, they don't have an obvious choice. Assad wants power for Assad, which benefits Russia. ISIS wants power for ISIS, which benefits Islamic Extremist Groups. The moderate rebels want power for the Syrian people, which benefits no one except the Syrian people, not the US or most other nations.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the moderate rebels don't actually appeal to any one other than human rights activists and Syrian people, whereas the majority of countries' governments which give aid do so for their own influence, not because it's the ethical or right thing to do. I agree with you, you should never chose the lesser of two evils when there's a possibility for a better offer, but politics overwhelm that.

that, and most Americans and people in democratic countries have come to be preconceived that there are only ever 2 options. Left or Right, Assad or ISIS, Palestine or Israel, Republican or Democrat, etc. The idea that there could be a tertiary option which succeeds more than a duality of choice scares those who have learned to live in a world of black or white.
User avatar
#86 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
The Syrian government was a Soviet/Russian ally since a longer time ago and Russia has several bases on the coast there
User avatar
#11 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
aren't the groups of "moderate rebels" either

A: selling their guns we give them to isis to escape to europe
B: Being bombed to ashes by russia
#4 - Ignoring the fact that the Syrian government has, at times, pr…  [+] (31 replies) 10/27/2015 on Syrian war summed up +73
User avatar
#5 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
at least it'd be far more open to negotiations/less dangerous to outside countries than ISIS, and far more likely from keeping the made up boarders made after WWII together and not descending into total anarchy.
#6 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
So... In other words, we shoud back the government that used chemical weapons against it's own population, because hey, at least it's not ISIS
User avatar
#128 - deerbeer (10/28/2015) [-]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one actually proved that Asad used chemical weapons. US government said they have evidence, but they couldn't show them in order to not reveal their sources. The incident ended with Asad giving up all the chemical weapons he had, so he can't use them now, even if he wanted.
#129 - phoenixactual (10/28/2015) [-]
You're right, it was never proven. But until the weapons were removed, they consistently remained under Syrian control. And we're stuck between the word of a dictator who kills anybody who disagrees with him, hence the cause of the whole damn civil war, and a bunch of murderous fucks, both trying to say the other side is responsible. The key factor in evidence, at least from our point of view, is the fact that only one side of the conflict had verifiable weapons stores, and it wasn't the group that would become ISIS. We can't trust either side here, there is no lesser of two evils.
#83 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
Its the legitimate government you ASS HOLE
#110 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
It was a legitimate government, until Assad decided to take supreme power over the country, and started ling anybody who disagreed with him. Not to mention the whole "gassing your own civilian population" part, which pretty much negates any remaining legitimacy he could have claimed.
#37 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
The chemical attack was blamed on the rebels www.examiner.com/article/u-s-backed-syrian-rebels-reportedly-massacre-christian-village by UN and witness testimony

Syria destroyed it's chemical weapons stock to prevent US intervention against the Syrian government like Sadam faced in Iraq
#111 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
Remember, it took almost a solid year to get them to cooperate, and even as the UN ships were waiting to remove the chemicals, he still refused to let them dock. Don't try to act like the current regime is somehow valid, they're still responsible for some pretty horrific shit
User avatar
#168 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
Well we got ISIS, Kurds, Syrian gov. and the rebels and every rebel group wants Sharia Law .

ISIS -> bat shit crazy
Kurds -> pretty much a wildcard
Rebels -> almost ISIS even gassed thousands of civilians which was blamed without any evidence on Assad
Syrian gov. -> Pretty much stability in that region because of their strict Secular ruling Christian, Jews and other people who would have been discriminated against had it really good under Assad which is why there were so many massacres on Christians by rebels and Kurds don't want to rule over all of Syria

>they're still responsible for some pretty horrific shit
It's war, in WWII you pretty much carpet bombed cities see Dresden bombing until there was nothing left or during the Iraq war the US also destroyed whole civilian building only because there could have been one soldier in it.

The only citation Western media mentions when it come to civilian deaths in Syria is the SOHR syrian observatory for human rights even though western media said that organisation is highly questionable this organisation is basically one dude in his flat in Britain but still use it as a source.

User avatar
#38 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
>>#37,

themarineelite ,sircool , etiennesk, paddypancake ,

The only people who pinned the gas attacks on the Syrian gov. were USA and other NATO allies
#113 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
Cause, you know, we can totally trust the likes of Putin and his allies
User avatar
#167 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
I didn't say anything about Putin or Assad being the nicest only that you still believed the mouth-propaganda from Kerry, Cameron, Obama and co. when it came to the syrian gas attack and even thought there were still a moderate rebel group left or a all-syrian group according to the the German intelligence service BND 96% of the rebels are foreigners
#21 - anon (10/27/2015) [-]
there are backed up resources from several big publications stating that there have been a use of chemical weapons, but there has been 0 proof that it was the government. im pretty sure that it wasnt the government
User avatar
#20 - mephiblis (10/27/2015) [-]
Where da proofs at? Citations and shiet son, do i hefta spell it out fer ya?
User avatar
#171 - alimais (10/28/2015) [-]
John Kerry said so, that's enough proof
User avatar
#7 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
which evil is better, the one using chemical weapons on its own people, or the one who'd likely use chemical weapons on its own people AND everyone around them?
User avatar
#131 - paranoidmuffin (10/28/2015) [-]
People still believe that Bashar used chem weapons? lol
#23 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
Neither you motherfucker. The Middle East is a Clusterfuck enough, let them murder each other. Or let Russia deal with them
#108 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
We caused most of the clusterfuck to begin with. Ever heard of "don't start something you aren't prepared to finish"?
User avatar
#112 - themarineelite (10/27/2015) [-]
We as in who?
#127 - phoenixactual (10/28/2015) [-]
Let's have a look back at the root cause of the problems ongoing currently in the Middle East. Before WWII, the entire region fell under the reign of the Ottoman Empire, which was a surprisingly liberal government, all things considered. Post war, the empire was broken up, and the entire area, regardless of cultural boundaries, was colonized by the victors. Half of Gaza was promised to the planned new Israeli state, with the rights of native people across the region being promised to be upheld. One only needs to look at the way Israel treats the Gaza strip to see how that worked. A coup in Iran, backed by the CIA, upended the democratically elected government in Iran, and the royal family was put back into power, purely to give the US an ally in the middle east. Saudi Arabia, having been left because it was considered to be too barren, was taken by militant Wahabbiism in the power vaccuum left by the fall of the old empire, and began to spread it's influence. The Iranian revolution happened during this spread, assisted by a nation tired of constant western influence, and militant Islam began taking hold in the region, as colonies were released from their parent nations one by one. Further influence over the years spread these feelings of resentment across the region, and dictatorships began to rise. We created the regimes we fought, get it? We created the taliban through training militants in Afghanistan in the '80s, we created modern Iran through the coup in the '60s, we even created ISIS by blindly invading Iraq with no credible intel, and leaving when the job wasn't even half finished. And the majority, every time, voted for the presidents that caused these conflicts with their actions. When I say we, I can honestly say I mean the majority of the American people
User avatar
#180 - themarineelite (10/28/2015) [-]
That wasn't America's fault for setting up the boundaries for the Middle East. It was British who decided where the boundaries were. Though the British did plenty of bad shit when they still had colonies.
#81 - nazo (10/27/2015) [-]
Europe is up there, man
#8 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
neither, you dense motherfucker. There is no lesser of two evils, if Assad is willing to use them against his own people, he's obviously got no problem with using them against others
User avatar
#30 - paddypancake (10/27/2015) [-]
Assad =Thinks about his own safebeing and kills his own people.
ISIS = People who kill all sorts of people they disagree with and who would die to hurt the western world.
User avatar
#9 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
when you're in the middle of backwards ass no where, no one cares about you.

When you're in the middle of backwards ass no where but sit on resources people want, they only care about your gov'ts stability and countries ability to send out those resources. The people in charge of both of those places do whatever it takes to remain in power, no matter the cost, only the second has far more to lose and far more pressure/assistance on them from global politics.

I don't like either, but there aren't any other choices at the moment and since glassing the area isn't an option, pick the lesser evil.
User avatar
#12 - zenler (10/27/2015) [-]
its what u call take over the dammed place by force since the fuckers there arent improving
#10 - phoenixactual (10/27/2015) [-]
There are plenty of other options, in case you forgot about the moderate rebels that are fighting both ISIS and the current regime. Why choose between two evils, when there's a group that only wants peace out of it?
User avatar
#14 - etiennesk (10/27/2015) [-]
Unfortunately the moderate rebels aren't the most apparent option because they've become out of the radar internationally. Trying to aid them is nearly impossible because ISIS is willing to mask themselves as the moderates to get aid intended for their enemies. Most foreign nations have difficulty ensuring that the side they're supporting aren't actually radicals.

Build that on top of the fact that most of the countries which are capable of offering aid are more interested in their own politics than the issue of human rights. Russia wants to help Assad because Putin believes he can manipulate him and wants to have more influence the region for the sake of Russia's benefit. not that that's a bad thing The US government, on the other hand, want the ability to influence the people in that region for their own benefit, and unlike Russia, they don't have an obvious choice. Assad wants power for Assad, which benefits Russia. ISIS wants power for ISIS, which benefits Islamic Extremist Groups. The moderate rebels want power for the Syrian people, which benefits no one except the Syrian people, not the US or most other nations.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the moderate rebels don't actually appeal to any one other than human rights activists and Syrian people, whereas the majority of countries' governments which give aid do so for their own influence, not because it's the ethical or right thing to do. I agree with you, you should never chose the lesser of two evils when there's a possibility for a better offer, but politics overwhelm that.

that, and most Americans and people in democratic countries have come to be preconceived that there are only ever 2 options. Left or Right, Assad or ISIS, Palestine or Israel, Republican or Democrat, etc. The idea that there could be a tertiary option which succeeds more than a duality of choice scares those who have learned to live in a world of black or white.
User avatar
#86 - alimais (10/27/2015) [-]
The Syrian government was a Soviet/Russian ally since a longer time ago and Russia has several bases on the coast there
User avatar
#11 - sircool (10/27/2015) [-]
aren't the groups of "moderate rebels" either

A: selling their guns we give them to isis to escape to europe
B: Being bombed to ashes by russia