by Tanada » Fri 03 May 2019, 10:27:28
Newfie wrote:Thanks for that.
It still feels a bit hollow, but maybe that is just the way it is. Maybe Bush needed a kicking boy after 911 and Iraq was convenient. Still leaves me baffled on Syria.
Syria was a direct result of HRC and her obsession with the 'Arab Spring' movement to replace authoritarian regimes unfriendly to the USA in Africa and the Middle East with 'Democracies' friendly to the USA. The overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya was the start of that sort of thinking followed by the fall of Mubarak, who had been a pretty friendly Egyptian leader for decades. Mubarak was in failing health so many in the Administration saw replacing him with an even more friendly 'leader' as being advantageous. From there the next domino that was expected to fall was Syria, and the obsession was such that even though known terrorist groups had moved in on Libya and stripped their advanced weapons arsenal wasn't a plain enough indicator for the obsessed. HRC and her clic at the State department insisted on sending arms to the 'rebels' in Syria despite the fact that many if not most of them were the same type of terror actors who had been causing trouble for decades in the region. Thus ISIS was born, armed with US sanctioned if not directly shipped advanced weapons.
Syria however has been a long standing ally of Russia and has provided them a key port for repair and rest in the Mediterranean Sea. When Russia started making noise about our 'intervention' we encouraged trouble right on the Russians doorstep. Whether the HRC theory was 'take away the Russian Black Sea Fleet and they would have no reason to care about Syria' or some variation remains unclear to me, but their actions were foolish, stupid and dangerous all at once.
Around this time the Ukraine went through a coupe de tet sanctioned by the USA/NATO to throw out the elected leadership and replace them with persons friendly to the USA/NATO and hostile to Russia. Worse those forces attempted to strip the Russians of long standing naval base on the Crimean that was a vital national interest to Russia. How would we react if Russia and China sponsored Cuba to forcibly take over Guantanamo Bay and make it a Russian/Chinese port of call and military base? Well Russia felt exactly the same way when the USA sponsored a Russian hating coup de tet in Ukraine. When the local population resisted being forcibly suppressed by the new 'government' in Ukraine it essentially lead to a civil war with Russia on the side of those resisting the coup de tet, hence the many pages of blather in the archive here on the 'Ukrainian Crisis' beginning in 2014 and lasting well over a year
https://peakoil.com/forums/russia-ukraine-crisis-pt-1The thing is once the Obama Administration lost the Senate in 2014 (change of control January 2015) there was a lot more restraint on what President Obama was comfortable trying to get away with internationally, and even more so HRC was focused wholly on the Presidential Campaign. So USA covert support of ISIS started dropping off right at the same time Russia had had enough shenanigans and was sponsoring both Crimean annexation and Syria against the 'rebels' who were USA proxy forces.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.