KopTalk.com Forums VIVE LA PARIS VIVE LA FRANCE

As I have stated before Latin Americans are a lovely people in the main and the US people can be very thankful its own govt's disgusting policies didn't not lead to a campaign on mainland USA. Another important point is that the US people themselves,(sick of american govt interventions) started up a massive solidarty campaign and spent their own money to go down and live in these isolated villages and towns which deterred the usa forces from going in and killing them, the US people also threatened another vietnam style protest when Reagan publhished his latin american white paper forcing that nutjob president to doing everything covert resulting in the huge scandals as u may well know.

Regards Iran and israel , yes iran would be more powerful but they have already accepted the UN resolution on settling the illegal israeli occupation and iran itself has become more and more moderate in recent years..why are we against the shia in general? they are more like us than the mental sunni leaders that we support. We all know why don't we...money. Cheaper to have mental rich leaders that let us do what we want than have a democractic majority ruled country that won't do what we want.

As regards the military aspect weapons and such, well we have used illegal chemicals(white phosphorus) and depleted uranium shells in iraq so we are no angels . I am sure Russia has some horrible weapons and we already know Assad uses barrel bombs on civilians, so yes its going to be an ugly ugly scenario whatever happens. But again we need to thread carefully..we are the hated ones in that region, are we going to go in with troops and then what? bring some syrian over that has been living in Kentucky the last 30yrs and tell them thats their new leader? It would have to be a well thought out strategy from beginning to end before we decide to move in. I think the iran.syrian response would be the lesser off two evils

And in this case with Israel as the dominant force in the region it leaves palestine very exposed, which is obviously your agenda, according to Stan logic that is.

I agree our weapons are pretty gruesome and there is no nice bomb to be dropped on your head but we at least try to limit civilians by precision targeting the Russians (and certainly the Iranians) have no compunctions. I agree Iran is appearing to become more moderate I am pretty sure anyway the Russians would not take on Syria alone with or without Iran not because they could not defeat Islamic state but they would not want the aftermath they remember Afghanistan. That's why it makes sense for an international coalition militarily and politically

Do you do any research before you post Stan? Take a look at which countries have caused the most civilian deaths as a result of their attacks. I can name several, NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by mistake, The Natianol TV Broadcaster during working hours, a building filled with civilians at the time, a hospital, a Bridge whilst a civilian train was on it etc. That was just in Serbia in 1999.

Well its 2015 now not 1999 techology is better but yes any bombing raid could cause civilian deaths and IS are pretty adept at hiding in civilians. My point is the west is likely to at least care about not hitting civilians albeit errors are made its war Ninja just to remind you. Whats your point we shouldnt ever use weapons in case of risk of civilian harm in which case you might as well de-commission all of them. I know this if I was in Syria or Iraq under control of Islamic State I would take my chances I would swear on that. You however would leave them it seems.

I would also remind you many french belgian and dutch people were killed in world war 2 by allied forces yet they welcomed and kissed their liberators with relief. Do you think the jews in 1945 complained about the allied bombing raids I think not Ninja. Bombing is terrible war is terrible but sometimes you have to do whats right. Doing nothing in this situation is evil too.

MY point is this, YOU are so arrogant to make a comment that "At least the west cares about civilian casualties". This suggests that the Russians and Iranians do not. What are they savages? You are obviously too pig headed and arrogant to see things as they are.

Yes, civilian casualties happen. NO, the west do not care more about civilians than Iran or Russia and YES, Britain and America have brought on more civilian casualties in the past 25 years than Russia and Iran put together.

Whether you like it or not, it's a fact. Your government kills civilians more than any other nation at the moment.

Is war the only option? No is suggesting we do nothing. People are simply suggesting, don't add oil to the fire. No is saying, let them be. There are more ways than millitary force to solve a problem, only idiots resort to violence as a first measure.

And another thing ninja you are suggesting the Americans and allies were aggressors in the war in Serbia let's remember why they were there to prevent genocide, death camps and brutal killings of torture. And who were they saving well Muslims and not a drop of oil in sight would you prefer that genocide was allowed to carry on ?

And yes I am suggesting the west would take more care to prevent accidents than Russia and Iran the human rights record of both, both in peace and war would suggest so.

And yes war should not be a first resort yes you should take care but how many years now have Islamic state been allowed to carry on freely and how long have the terrorist attacks in European cities been going on ?

You see, you just prove my point. Actually there was no genocide, there were the atrocities of war. However the media spun up a storm and had you believe what they wanted you to believe, which was far from what the reality was. Hundreds of thousands of Serbians driven from their homes in Kosovo, under the threat of terrorism.

No there was no oil but there were plenty of other natural resources, including coal, copper, gold and lithium. "The Republic of Kosovo" was created to serve the interests of big powers who control money flow.

Kosovo is a prime example of a mafia-terrorist run state and is on par with Afghanistan - which was one of the first countries to recognize it - and Columbia, Sudan, Somalia.

According to British journalist and academic John Laughland, a member of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, who noted that "the sovereignty of Kosovo is fiction, while real power is in the hands of EU clerks and NATO soldiers".

Many American officials, whether former or those currently posted in Kosovo, became owners or co-owners of many companies there, primarily those in the telecommunications and energy sector:

"General Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO forces during the bombing of Serbia, is now the owner of a Canadian energy company that actively utilizes coal and synthetic fuel products from Kosovo. (Former U.S. Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright owns a 75-percent stake in the K-Telecom company. In effect, Albright is a monopolist when it comes to telecommunications in Kosovo."

The media in the U.S. have been pointing out that former officials were taking part in privatizations in Kosovo and investing there in order to achieve their business and personal interests.