[knz]

> United States is leading a bombing campaign that has recently killed over 50,000 people in Syria and Iraq

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to omit the fact that both Iraq and Syria have areas experiencing active warfare? The bombing campaign is not occurring in a vacuum, is targeted at people engaged in warfare against us or our allies, and those conflicts have killed far more people than just the bombing campaign - including via the use of chemical weapons.

I'm not trying to justify civilian casualties, the ongoing drone attacks on multiple continents, or even answer whether we should be involved in these conflicts - I just think the situation is more nuanced than "the US has bombed/killed 50,000 people in Syria and Iraq".

[finid]

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to omit the fact that both Iraq and Syria have areas experiencing active warfare?

But what you seem to ignore is that the active warfare in both countries was caused by us. And in Libya too.

Think about that. Those countries are now a mess because of "regime change".

[knz]

I'm aware that the US/NATO was involved in the Arab Spring. But again, I think the reality was far more complex - Mohamed Bouazizi didn't immolate himself because the CIA/MI6 told him to. There were videos from the time of people marching and being shot by their governments - those governments could have chosen to bring meaningful reform but instead chose violence. Likewise with Assad in Syria - the CIA/MI6 aren't making him drop barrel bombs or use chemical weapons.

Even outside of internal pressures, geopolitics are at play as well - Iran and Russia are playing "the great game" as much as the US/NATO are in the fight against terrorism.

[finid]

Since the so-called Arab Spring started in Tunisia, you have to ask yourself why we didn't push for "regime change" in that country.

The demonstrations in Syria were not spontaneous. They were engineered. If you have time, read the email exchanges between the US ambassador to Syria and H. Clinton.

Regarding Iran and Russia playing "the great game", they're supporting the legitimate govt of that country. Without their support, Assad would have been dead years ago, and Syria would have been in worse shape than it is now.

You might start by reading https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

Edit: Added WikiLeaks links

[eternalban]

Considering that Iran has been, without the least exaggeration, in active cross-hair of the "great game" of the Anglo vs Russ for the past 150 years, saying that Iran is playing the "great game" is rather bizzare.

[knz]

I was using the term loosely - not specifically the UK/Russia relationship.

[knz]

We probably share the same opinion on why no one has pushed for "regime change" in Tunisia.

Iran is definitely playing geopolitics when they arm Houthis (fighting the internationally recognized government) with anti ship missiles in the Strait of Hormuz. Were they also not arming the Iraqi insurgents/sending military forces over the border during the height of the conflict in Iraq? How about Russia in Ukraine (are the "little green men" freedom fighters or rebels?)? Russia has more than just the support of a government in mind when it supports Syria.

I'm not saying one side is right or wrong - just that none of these actions happen in a vacuum.

[finid]

I'm not saying one side is right or wrong - just that none of these actions happen in a vacuum.

And you're correct, because they don't.

My original point in all of this is that we're creating a refugees crisis, but refusing to take them in. That, in my opinion, is just evil.

[knz]

Just saw your edit with Wikileaks. Thanks for sharing it. It's an interesting read especially in the context of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard.

It's all geopolitics...

[finid]

This one is even better. It's all the way from 2006, long before the so-called Arab Spring started.

http://wikileaks.cabledrum.net/cable/2006/12/06DAMASCUS5399....