"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And while there may not be a treaty, but we've been on relatively good terms with Russia since the end of the Cold War.
Im sorry, but I cannot consider a country that is bombing innocent civilians and protecting the Assad regime openly a friend, and only should be negotiated with to get them to stop, and remember, there's a lot more sides to the Syrian Civil War than just Assad and ISIS
We've bombed innocent civilians, too. Hell, we've vaporized entire cities. It's war. It's not supposed to be pretty, pleasant, or fair. The Syria situation is complicated. After researching the subject, that's really the only definite conclusion I can draw. Russia has their reasons for siding with Assad, and we have our own reasons for wanting him gone. To be perfectly honest, I'm not informed enough to say for certain what the proper course of action is here. But I can say for certain that the United States would be a lot better off with Russia as a friend than we will be if the current administration continues down the previous administration's path.
No. The US isnt bombing civilians and hospitals daily, and dropping indiscriminate barrel and cluster bombs on civilian markets. So just stop with the false equivalences, okay? Yes, the US has killed civilians in airstrikes, Im not denying that, but those were in a tiny minority. (not quite so with Trump giving the military far more leeway in when and where to bomb now, but still). In WW2. Twice. Stop with the false equivalence. That's fair, not really anyone does. But Assad has to stand down and answer for his war crimes, dont you think? No. We shouldnt be friends with an aggressor nation. They illegally siezed the Crimea, they are pouring troops into the Ukraine to keep the rebels there alive. They are supporting a brutal dictator who's continued rule has left up to 500,000 dead and a third of his country displaced in some form. Russia does not deserve to be befriended. If they clean up they're act, then sure, but until Putin stops being a dictator and all but name, I doubt that.
yeaaaahhhhh, that article has really biased sources. Edit: Evidentally it's clear I'm the only one who realizes the US doesn't kill civilians on purpose nor very often especially when compared to Russia, so Im just going to drop it as Ive never seen anyone back away from it
Huffpost hates Trump. That's not even an opinion. There's a long history of bitterness since before he ever even announced his candidacy. But there are many cases of the US bombing civilians during wartime in modern history. Most notably Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And there's many other sources saying the exact same thing. The fact is, we kill plenty of civilians, and they're certainly not a tiny minority. Hell, we nuked two Japanese cities full of civilians, if you recall. We also invaded the wrong country after 9/11.
Dude. Stop bringing up WW2. That was over 70 years ago, and is not anywhere close to relavent to this conversation. Literally everyone bombed civilians in WW2, and yes, the atom bombs WERE justified in the end as they arguably saved millions of lives by being a major factor in making the Japanese surrender.
And I'm not saying they weren't justified. I know they were. I'm just saying it's not as black and white as we'd all like it to be. How many of those "innocent civilians" were ISIS sympathizers, or radicals themselves? We live in a world where a parents will send their young children to murder nonbelievers in the name of their god. It's an ugly, horrible situation, and there is no easy solution. Is it acceptable for civilians to die in a war? I think we agree that, in some cases, it is. So now the question becomes where the line is drawn. In addition to the tens of thousands killed by the atomic bombs, hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians suffered for decades after the bombs went off. And we just agreed that that's okay, because millions more would have likely died if the war had continued. So are we really justified to say that it's wrong that babies are choking on the same poison gas that's killing the militants next door? Why is it different? Because now, thanks to the media, we have to see the casualties? We have to look at, and live with, the consequences?
Wow. That's messed up dude. Are you that convinced that bombing anywhere in Syria, you'll be killing a bunch of terrorists? Thats simply false, especially when you take into account that the Assad regime drops barrel bombs on CIVILIAN MARKETS and coordinates with Russia to bomb hospitals. Oh, and basically every last one of the 200+ people who died in that chemical gas attack were civilians. War is brutal, I know, but it is unacceptable to bomb a civilian area for basically no reason.
There is a reason, though. Hospitals are part of a city's infrastructure. The destruction of infrastructure is common military strategy. Yeah, it's brutal. Horrifying. But that's what war is. As for the gas attack, while I don't doubt that the Syrian government was responsible, I also suspect that Russia either believes the official Syrian government claim (airstrike on a rebel storehouse struck stored chemical weapons), or they're in so deep that they're choosing to accept the story.
No, strikes on hospitals are a violation of international law, as hospitals are supposed to ve neutral sites. If a hospital is only holding and treating the injured as the vast majority of hospitals Syria do, then it is illegal to strike them. It is only legal when armed, active combatants are confirmed inside and the building's occupants are warned. The latter is far more likely, as Russia should know as well as the West does that Sarin gas is destroyed by airstrikes. But the reasons why dont matter, they still are protecting Assad in the UN, not even trying to facialtate a free and fair investigation as they argue for the Syrian terms (samples cant leave Syria, only interview witnesses approved by Assad, all tests done under Syrian supervision, and a bunch of other ridiculous conditions)
I'm not condoning what happened, I'm just trying to explain what I believe to be the reasoning behind it.
"Trump questions why U.S. Civil War had to happen" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-jackson-idUSKBN17X20W I know this isnt related to bombings but this is just too stupid to not bring up. The president. of the United States. Doesnt know why the Civil War happened.
Yes I read the article and watched the interview. Tell me how is this; "[Andrew Jackson] was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War.""He said, 'There's no reason for this,'People don't realize, you know, the Civil War — if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?" not idiotic? 1: Andrew Jackson had been dead for 2 decades, 2: He gave a false quote to Jackson saying there was no reason for the Civil War. 3: He says people dont ask why the civil war happened. Tell me, how is that not just being an idiot?
