US launches missile attacks against Syrian targets. 07/04/17

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Porkbrain, Apr 7, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Are they not imperialists in Washington? I mean foreign policy orthodoxy?
     
  2. Since America is a successful revolutionary nation, having split from their rightful British management, they have spent the 20th century largely disassembling empires.
    So, as usual, you are wrong.
    As usual, you know you are wrong.
    What a soul destroying job you must have, parroting the garbage of your masters.
     
  3. I'm not sure a magazine 'considered the “flagship” of the political Left' can be considered to write impartial articles personally:
    About Us and Contact
    Mind you, Russia could take notice of this:
     
  4. It would take notice of it.
    Just long enough to shut it down.
     
  5. I had no idea you saw ISIS as so justified. Isn't that the same line they use across the MENA?
     
  6. Well, everybody else's, at any rate.

    They do seem to have spent rather a lot of time governing places that were previously either sovereign in their own right or part of someone else's sovereignty.
     
  7. 200 lb Gorilla syndrome. Does what it wants. However, does it forcibly take over the chimpanzee enclosure?
    When the Russians, who are openly attempting to restore the borders of the USSR at the expense of their neighbours bleat about "Imperialism", I find that my stinking hypocrite alarm goes off.
     
  8. I see IS as effectively extinct. They got blackballed from the dance for treading on everyone's feet on purpose.
     
  9. So you claim that America now is a successful revolutionary nation. So what nations from your point of view are counter-revolutionary?
    Russia, China, France, the UK... Or maybe Great Britain is also revolutionary nation?
    Methods are too well known.
    [​IMG]
    By contrast you are sure that you are right while I use to doubt, to analyse facts, events, statements, claims and real deeds.
    As I see you avoid to give a direct answer - are they in Washington orthodoxal imperialists?
    Your unwillingness to answer is telling.
     
  10. It doesn't matter. You frequently quote, refer to Reuters of the World that is openly biased, tells at best half truth, presents in many cases allegations as proven facts.
    Maybe the edition that I quoted has its own political line. It is their right in the context of freedoms of speech and opinions.
    Have you seen allegations presented as facts in the article that I quoted? No?
    As for opinions in the article they you may agree or disagree, to comment them or prefer not to comment. It is your right.
     
  11. You know as well as I do that Reuters is probably one of (if not the most) independent news organisations on the planet.

    The only reason you got upset by Reuters was after they quoted the Bellingcat article on MH17
    Of course, you quote an article that promulgates yours and Russia's point of view, but not others such as 'about us'
    This will do:
    It's hardly 'at the expense of all else' is it?

    This is simply an opinion:
    The US strikes were to protect their forces

    Need I go on?
    That's why I looked to the source of what is clearly a biased article.

    No comment on the press freedom?
     
  12. Mine tends to go off at 'a puppet government is fine but don't attempt to rule directly, 'coz drugs are bad, m'kay?'
     
  13. :)
    Not at all. Dreamers from Bellingcat are being quoted by my editions. Merely Reuters is unreliable news-source for the reasons I outlined. It (unlike BBC) even doesn't try to present viewpoints of all sides of a strory even if it is not hard to find respective information.
    Reuters ignores complaints about factual mistakes (I tried to complain just to be sure).
    It is freedom of speech and opinions in action. Try to accept it. My personal views (especially on Russian domestic matters) sometimes absolutely different from point of view of Kremlin, Putin's agitprop.
    For example I expressed previously doubt and repeat it now that Putin's Syrian adventure was ever needed.
    You qoute this fragment of the article
    Apparently it is an opinion that I regard as reasonable.
    Rulling circles in Washington along with Israeli allies/masters regard namely Iran as the main threat. As for ISIS then it is a minor threat (or not even a threat) while the jihadists are rather useful tool to remove Assad from power.
    I see it as an opinion. Where do you see allegations presented as facts?
    You quote the article again
    It is also an opinion and I share it.
    You also have right for personal opinion. Though not 'their (US) forces' but - let's call things by their true names - anti-government rebels and Kurdish separatists.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2017
  14. Not so long as we need their oil, apparently.
     
  15. Well Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, etc. spent a good deal of time in the 20th century disassembling empires as well, in pretty much the same way the US did with their own colonial empire.

    I guess everyone's got very shiny anti-imperialist credentials. Except of course for whomever is on our list of countries we don't like, because as the arbiters of historical correctness, we're free to decide what is acceptable imperialism and what is unacceptable imperialism.
     
    • Like Like x 1