BREXIT!

Quasi-duck wrote:

Three things: NATO, USA, why?

1. NATO does help a lot, but it would be better if USA didn't actually do 99% of the work.
2. USA helps too, but we can't rely on them for everything.

Pablo22510 wrote:

NATO does help a lot, but it would be better if USA didn't actually do 99% of the work.

USA helps too, but we can't rely on them for everything.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Yes, but why is Russia so "evil" that most the Western world unites against them?

Pablo22510 wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Yes, but why is Russia so "evil" that most the Western world unites against them?

so against Western interests.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Well, 'cos they invaded Ukraine

Pablo22510 wrote:

and are supporting Assad

Pablo22510 wrote:

isn't democratic, so against Western interests.

The situation in Afghanistan is the way it is because the US funded to terrorists overthrow a democratic republic all because the DRA was supported by the USSR.

nemuritor98_ wrote:

Which are those Western interests?

Quasi-duck wrote:

They had claims on the territory. May I remind you that the Americans invaded Afghanistan (yes, I know why, but still. There is meant to be a rising of fascism in Ukraine anyways, and we all know how that goes), as well as the US invading Spanish controlled Philippines, Guam, Cuba, and Puerto Rico over the sinking of a ship that either sunk due to old age, or was blown up by US forces.

Quasi-duck wrote:

The US supports Saudi-Arabia and put Saddam Hussein back in power after the First Gulf War, leading the Second one.

Quasi-duck wrote:

May I remind you when Soviet forces were formally invited into Afghanistan to support the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the US funded the Mujahideen forces to fight the Soviets and overthrow a democratic government which lead to the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, 9/11, then finally culminating in a 13 year war there, then pulling out, re-inserting a year later and are still there to this day.

As for the US funding the mujahideen (not creating them), it wasn't a mistake. Funding them didn't lead to the rise of the Taliban. Let me give you a brief explanation:

The mujahideen (hereafter referred to as simply the MJH) consisted of 13 'tribes' lead by 13 different warlords. In the beginning, the US funded all 13. However, like some US Senator pointed out, some of those 13 were Islamist extremists who might well turn against the US when the war ended. So they only funded 6 or 7, the moderate ones. The most important ones of those six were the Tajiks and the Uzbeks, later called the Northern Alliance. The other ones, the ones that weren't funded, mostly passed onto insignificance: bar one. One of them managed to secure funding from one of the sons of a rich Saudi sheikh. That man was named Usama bin-Laden. As US interest in the war decreased, and therefore also funding, the group funded by UBL became the most important. They were called the Taliban. In 1989, the Soviets retreated, and left the country for good. The Taliban, being the most important group, governed Afghanistan, but not without opposition. The Northern Alliance still resisted in the north. It continued like that for an amazing 12 years, until 9/11. A few weeks after 9/11, the US formally requested the Taliban government entry into Afghanistan to search and capture UBL. As the Taliban were funded and virtually run by UBL, they obviously refused. The US invaded, but that's another story.

Pablo22510 wrote:

That's bullshit, and you know it. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was because their Communist puppet had been overthrown, and a anti-Communist government had been set up. The Soviets then decided to land VDVs at Kabul AFB, take back the presidential palace and install their puppet again. Then, and only then, was when they were invited.

Pablo22510 wrote:

The mujahideen (hereafter referred to as simply the MJH) consisted of 13 'tribes' lead by 13 different warlords. In the beginning, the US funded all 13. However, like some US Senator pointed out, some of those 13 were Islamist extremists who might well turn against the US when the war ended. So they only funded 6 or 7, the moderate ones. The most important ones of those six were the Tajiks and the Uzbeks, later called the Northern Alliance. The other ones, the ones that weren't funded, mostly passed onto insignificance: bar one. One of them managed to secure funding from one of the sons of a rich Saudi sheikh. That man was named Usama bin-Laden. As US interest in the war decreased, and therefore also funding, the group funded by UBL became the most important. They were called the Taliban. In 1989, the Soviets retreated, and left the country for good. The Taliban, being the most important group, governed Afghanistan, but not without opposition. The Northern Alliance still resisted in the north. It continued like that for an amazing 12 years, until 9/11. A few weeks after 9/11, the US formally requested the Taliban government entry into Afghanistan to search and capture UBL. As the Taliban were funded and virtually run by UBL, they obviously refused. The US invaded, but that's another story.

Pablo22510 wrote:

I don't know precisely what they are, but they are most definitely not suporting an authoritarian madman who kills people with nerve gas.

At this moment Western interests are to gain money at any price.

Quasi-duck wrote:

It was a democratic republic that the US had a hand in destroying.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Obviously you have neither properly read about Osama, nor seen this US newspaper article. The caption underneath the picture says "Osama Bin Laden surveys the 800km...". I can't read the rest.

nemuritor98_ wrote:

But they support breaking human rights, EU rules and so over and killing people just for money?

At this moment Western interests are to gain money at any price.

At this moment Western interests are to fight both internally and externally against people like you who don't appreciate the lucky they are to live in a Western world. Answer, where would you rather live, France ot Syria?

I heard on the radio this morning while I was driving to work that because of all the crybabies throwing tantrums in London about the result, we probably will either have another referendum or the next leader of the conservative, either May or whoever the other woman is, will most make a dog's dinner of the negotiations and fuck it all up meaning we still end up in the EU and have to fund bail outs for Greece, Italy and most Eastern and Southern European countries

Pablo22510 wrote:

here would you rather live, France ot Syria?

Pablo22510 wrote:

Yeah, an article that dates back to the beginning of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Check out these, more modern:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Answer, where would you rather live, France ot Syria?

Pablo22510 wrote:

How are they breaking human rights, EU rules, and killing people just for money?

How are they killing people just for money?

The fight they are having in Syria, is all about money.

Check this out, also available in English and other 12 languages:

PD: I suggest you( @Pablo22510 ) check out his other videos.

comrade dave wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

here would you rather live, France ot Syria?

Give it a couple of decades with the current influx of "Refugees" and they'll be almost the same country.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Yeah, an article that dates back to the beginning of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Check out these, more modern:

This supports my point. The US will back stab their allies, who happen to be terrorists.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Answer, where would you rather live, France ot Syria?

The situation in Syria came from US funding and training of terrorist groups, then invading Iraq twice, removing a stable power in the region.

nemuritor98_ wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

How are they breaking human rights, EU rules, and killing people just for money?

Last EU agreement with Turkey denying asylum is against it.

How are they killing people just for money?

The fight they are having in Syria, is all about money.

Check this out, also available in English and other 12 languages:

PD: I suggest you( @Pablo22510 ) check out his other videos.

The fight in Syria is all about Assad, a murdering madman who is killing Syrian civilians by the thousands.

I have already seen that video and it is complete and utter bullshit.

Check out this article:

foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/09/why-are-russian-engineers-working-at-an-islamic-state-controlled-gas-plant-in-syria/

Pablo22510 wrote:

UBL was never an ally of the USA. He didn't receive funds.

Quasi-duck wrote:

He did, why would the US praise some random Afghani? He was a leader, and was indirectly given funds by the US. Check out the criticism section of the Wikipedia page on Operation Cyclone.

Pablo22510 wrote:

The US didn't praise him, and US newspaper did.

Pablo22510 wrote:

The fight in Syria is all about Assad, a murdering madman who is killing Syrian civilians by the thousands.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Either way, a US media outlet is praising a terrorist.

Quasi-duck wrote:

It was but now it is about Daesh.

Btw, we are going OT.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Correct (starting to sound like Maxi now). Have you read the article I posted?

Pablo22510 wrote:

A organization

Pablo22510 wrote:

that has no powers in terms of field ops, and as it isn't the official US government, it isn't official.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Btw, we are going OT.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Correct (starting to sound like Maxi now). Have you read the article I posted?

What article?

Pablo22510 wrote:

A organization

An*

Pablo22510 wrote:

that has no powers in terms of field ops, and as it isn't the official US government, it isn't official.

Propaganda is a powerful thing. It was journalists who got the US geared up for the Spanish-American war.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Btw, we are going OT.

Yeah, let's shut up.

1. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/09/why-are-russian-engineers-working-at-an-islamic-state-controlled-gas-plant-in-syria/
2. True
3. Yeah, but one newspaper hardly counts as propaganda.
4. Yeah, let's.