They suffered defeat after defeat, and may have just been dealt the killing blow by Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, President of Turkmenistan. The personal military contributions of the President are well documented in this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA_EVnvSVU4

 

Now if only Trump did a similar video....I could die a happy man, for I have seen all.

 

 

 

 

I'm shocked Rafay... SHOCKED! that you would say something like this to me. Try the racist card next... I'm very familiar with the routine.

 

No thank you I'd very much stick w/ the sexist card. It comes w/ more burden of guilt. I didn't just mean you but most Americans who as much as they don't want to admit are still stuck in the 18th century and can't see a lady in the highest office. Hillary had controversies sure but so did Donald. I think it came down to sex. I mean why else would anyone choose a guy w/ no experience vs someone who's spent 30+ years in the field. 

I mean why else would anyone choose a guy w/ no experience vs someone who's spent 30+ years in the field.

I assume this was a question. The election came down to Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. They trusted Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Saying Trump has no experience is flat out false. Saying Trump has no experience in an elected office would be true. Hillary Clinton is the wife of a former Governor and President. She was elected twice for Senator for 8 years, and appointed Secretary of State for 4 years... the 4 years as SoS is the part that really screwed her with voters. She has done so many nefarious things that the majority of voters in swing states no longer trust her. Saying she has 30+ years experience in the field is laughable at best.

 

Donald Trump campaigned as a pro-American Conservative... Hillary Clinton campaigned as pro-Progressive Liberal, and 8 more years of an Obama agenda... The United States chose Donald Trump. It's now time that everyone accept that.

 

 

It's now time that everyone accept that.

 

No one is denying it. No one can to say the least.

 

But Hillary isn't the only one who has done "nefarious" things in "politics". There isn't such a thing a sacred cows in politics. But like I pointed out Trump also had his fair share of controversies from racism to sexism to even rape allegations. The fact that people chose to ignore that is bewildering and thus supporting my theory of sexism.  

 

 

Trump also had his fair share of controversies from racism to sexism to even rape allegations.

Come on Rafay... none of this stuff was an issue before he became a Presidential candidate, and it was all contrived by his opposition to defeat him. It just didn't work. Mrs. Hillary's "controversies", were all real, and effected the entire American population. The entire country loved Trump before he came out hard against everything Barack Obama did to the country... they loved his attitude, his arrogance, and his money. He was very generous. He ran for President as a Republican, and suddenly he became Hitler.

 

This thread has been derailed enough... so please stop now.

 

It's now time that everyone accept that.

 

No one is denying it. No one can to say the least.

 

But Hillary isn't the only one who has done "nefarious" things in "politics". There isn't such a thing a sacred cows in politics. But like I pointed out Trump also had his fair share of controversies from racism to sexism to even rape allegations. The fact that people chose to ignore that is bewildering and thus supporting my theory of sexism.  

 

I think in the end it came down to people voting for Trump the future politician, not Trump the person. On the other hand, people chose not to vote for Hillary because they didn't like Hillary the politician, not necessarily Hillary the person.

 

That was the case for me at least. I've heard some rather unflattering stories about Hillary the person, from former Secret Service agents that have served the Clinton family over the years. But none of those negative comments about her influenced my decision on deciding she was a bad politician.

Its amusing to see what this thread had become

from comedy spoof of a leader to discussion on global war phenomenon

and then to internal politics of nation 

It really is hilarious!

 

 

This thread has been derailed enough...

 

True.

 

 

 

so please stop now.

 

Never against Fascists. Any other topic where we can continue? 

 

I'm shocked Rafay... SHOCKED! that you would say something like this to me. Try the racist card next... I'm very familiar with the routine.

 

No thank you I'd very much stick w/ the sexist card. It comes w/ more burden of guilt. I didn't just mean you but most Americans who as much as they don't want to admit are still stuck in the 18th century and can't see a lady in the highest office. Hillary had controversies sure but so did Donald. I think it came down to sex. I mean why else would anyone choose a guy w/ no experience vs someone who's spent 30+ years in the field. 

 

 

Was just good old Rep vs Dem, neither sides rabid supports made this happen, it was the silent "not X" that did it.

 

 

Was just good old Rep vs Dem, neither sides rabid supports made this happen, it was the silent "not X" that did it.

Wrong. It was just good old American vs Pakistan. Let's not forget geography. My vote was the one that counted.

 

1. The people of the Middle East are not ready nor are they willing to accept Democracy. A limited Monarchy seems to be the sweet spot in terms of general population happiness and relative peace. Middle Eastern nations have been run by a Theocracy or a Monarchy for thousands of years. Its only natural the masses wouldn't immediately flock towards the support of a new form of government.

 

It is not the masses that is the issue, it is the 1% with power (or power dreams) that are. It is just that much more viable to rule by force in the Middle East then it would be in the Western world.

 

Transition is certainly needed instead of radical change (in any direction), but to outright claim that the ME inhabitants are nothing but "big chief worshippers" is a stretch. It isn't like The West is a true democracy in itself anyway...

 

This delusion the west has that democracy is what everyone wants is jut that, a delusion. In Russia, Putin came to power and removed a lot of democracy by popular demand. 

Whats best for some may not be best for all. Culture shock can really take people for a loop.  

 

 

If Assad is legitimate ten so are KSA, Iran and North Korea but they too get bashed for human rights violations, well not KSA cuz of the oil but you get the point. The point here is that legitimate doesn't mean right. He's killing his own people. How does that make him right. He's a dictator who usurped power and has his family ruling the country.

 

Who ever is right in war?

Iran is A-OK in my book aside from the Ayatollah. Unlike the rest of my country, I recognize Iran for what it is. A peaceful country that has never declared an offensive war, allows it's women and religious minorities full rights and proper government representation (something lacking in the middle east), and is overall backed into a corner simply trying to defend itself against a wall of people who hate it and want to destroy it simply for existing a the epicenter of Shia Islam. 

The only reason we're opposed to Iran is because of this. Because most of the Muslim world is Sunni, and backing Iran in any way delegitimizes our desire to have any friends in a Sunni dominated middle east. We simply sided with numbers, even though the Sunni like us no better than Shia. We actually choose to side with and white wash the crimes of one of the worlds worst human rights abusers (Saudi Arabia), simply because it's a gateway to influence and control in the region. Our government gives no fucks about human rights. If we did, we wouldn't be funding a nation who still enslaves Africans and treats women like property over a nation who actually gives it's people rights. 

Want to argue middle east with me? Better do some research and take your eyes off the western worlds propaganda for a bit. Get to know the reality of the middle east before regurgitating CNN. 

 

 

 

Gays have no rights, there is no freedom of speech or expression against the government, people aren't allowed to vote, the list goes on and on. Banning headscarves isn't secular that's just fashion or something. When Assad says he's gonna legalize cannabis or make homosexuality legal then we'll talk about secularism.

LMAO! You think any of the rebels there are pro-gay? They're mostly Salafist, dude. You want people to have rights? FSA was never about rights. They were and always have been about killing. They said it themselves when they made it clear they had NO political goals other than killing Assad. Hence the severe lack of unity and why they lost.

You're talking about extreme liberalism that only really exists in the west. Legal weed? Gay rights? Are you serious? This is SYRIA! Not Canada!

And again, as I already pointed out, Assads family has been perusing more secularism, but if you can't even change the constitution to let non-Muslims be president, WTF makes you think they're going to legalize gay marriage? 

 

 

 

Well in Iraq power sharing was disproportionate. The Shias though a majority were given way too much power and representation than the Kurds or Sunnis and they also began prosecuting the latter which led to the situation breaking down. And Afghanistan well they're animals to be honest I don't think much of them. Couldn't even get a railway track in their country so nothing will work on them. 

And before that it was exactly the opposite. Too much power in Sunni hands. So we just juggle everything around for them every few years?

 

 

 

That's the problem his democracy is good for him only. It's corrupt and the elections were gonna be rigged in his favor. Hitler also held referendum so are we gonna call him a democratic process supporter?

The elections in the US are rigged in favor of the elite as well. Same with Russia and any other democracy. Democracy is not nearly as perfect as our media wants you to believe. In any case, Assad has a shit ton of support, despite all this. So you're telling me that you'd support the rights and decisions of his opponents but not his supporters? Why? They are just as (if nor more) numerous and are composed of every day people like you and I. Do you not care about their opinions, well being or families? The rebels have shown on film what they do to government supporters and employees. And it's certainly no better than what Assad does to rebels. There are no good sides in this war, but Assad is certainly on the brighter side in comparison to ISIS or the southern rebels. 

Now the SDF, I could get behind. Probelm is, they are so intermingled with and reliant on separate Kurdish forces that they have no real control over anything other than a threat of force if people don't do what they want. In which case, they end up at odds with the Kurds or even Assad. They are too weak to lead Syria, let alone control it. 

 

I'm shocked Rafay... SHOCKED! that you would say something like this to me. Try the racist card next... I'm very familiar with the routine.

 

No thank you I'd very much stick w/ the sexist card. It comes w/ more burden of guilt. I didn't just mean you but most Americans who as much as they don't want to admit are still stuck in the 18th century and can't see a lady in the highest office. Hillary had controversies sure but so did Donald. I think it came down to sex. I mean why else would anyone choose a guy w/ no experience vs someone who's spent 30+ years in the field. 

 

As a woman, I can easily say that Hillary was just as bad if not worse than Trump. She's a warhawk who not only couldn't admit her amazing fuck up in Libya, but then spent her campaign talking about how evil Russia is. 

Yeah, sorry, but a complete idiot in office almost sounds better than Russian ICBM's in my morning skies. 

 

Sex had nothing to do with her failure. In fact, she got the popular vote. I'm inclined to believe Obama was originally elected largely because he was black. People thought it would be historic. In this liberal age, people would have mindlessly voted for Hillary if not for her own garbage reputation and bloodlust. 

 

 

1. The people of the Middle East are not ready nor are they willing to accept Democracy. A limited Monarchy seems to be the sweet spot in terms of general population happiness and relative peace. Middle Eastern nations have been run by a Theocracy or a Monarchy for thousands of years. Its only natural the masses wouldn't immediately flock towards the support of a new form of government.

 

It is not the masses that is the issue, it is the 1% with power (or power dreams) that are. It is just that much more viable to rule by force in the Middle East then it would be in the Western world.

 

Transition is certainly needed instead of radical change (in any direction), but to outright claim that the ME inhabitants are nothing but "big chief worshippers" is a stretch. It isn't like The West is a true democracy in itself anyway...

 

This delusion the west has that democracy is what everyone wants is jut that, a delusion. In Russia, Putin came to power and removed a lot of democracy by popular demand. 

Whats best for some may not be best for all. Culture shock can really take people for a loop.

 

Of course, it was never sold like that. If he had come out and asked his people "Hey would you rather live in a Democracy or a Dictatorship?" the answer would have been clear. He's still not selling it like that, and if you were to ask your average Putin supporter, they would without a doubt say that they live in a free Democracy.

 

The bottom line is that your average voter is gullible and really doesn't have a clue. Yes, I'm an Elitist.

Iran is A-OK in my book aside from the Ayatollah. Unlike the rest of my country, I recognize Iran for what it is. A peaceful country that has never declared an offensive war, allows it's women and religious minorities full rights and proper government representation (something lacking in the middle east), and is overall backed into a corner simply trying to defend itself against a wall of people who hate it and want to destroy it simply for existing a the epicenter of Shia Islam.

While I genrally agree with the sentiment that Iran is less destructive in many aspects than Saudi Arabia, let's not go too overboard with the praise. While they have indeed never declared a "proper" offensive war (we're talking about the Islamic Republic era), I wouldn't exactly say they're peaceful, when prayers to this day regularly include a wish for the complete annihilation of Israel. As for exual right for women? LOL. Try attending a volley ball match (https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/30/banned-stadiums-being-woman-iran)

Here are some other Iranian gender-equality measures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Iran#Women_and_the_Iranian_Revolution

 

Of course, it was never sold like that. If he had come out and asked his people "Hey would you rather live in a Democracy or a Dictatorship?" the answer would have been clear. He's still not selling it like that, and if you were to ask your average Putin supporter, they would without a doubt say that they live in a free Democracy.

 

The bottom line is that your average voter is gullible and really doesn't have a clue. Yes, I'm an Elitist.

 

Perfect example of what I just mentioned. 

Fact is, when Putin de-democratized Russia, it wasn't just accepted, it was in fact popular. By every means. Anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant of Russian culture, politics and history. Yeltsin was hated by Russians for being too democratic, too much of a pushover, and perceived as being a leader who caved to west on demand. 

The reality of Russia is in it's precedents. Forever, Russia has been held together and ruled by strong leaders who establish their authority through force. Not until Yeltsin was this precedent changed. After his popularity tanked he was forced to hand over power to an ambitious man named Putin. 

Now sure, not everyone in Russia likes Putin. Plenty of Russians hate him. But those same Russians who hate him are probably not the democracy loving people that the US government would want you to think they are. 

In fact, the largest political parties in the Russian Federation are as follows (in order of popularity):

1. United Russia

2. Communist Party of the Russian Federation

3. Liberal Democratic Party of Russia

 

Now let's take a look at these top 3, since they account for the huge, huge majority or Russia. 

 

#1: We have Putins party. The original democratic party and rulers of Russia with an iron fist. What else can be said that you don't already know?

#2: We have the communist party. I don't think I need to tell anyone, Russian or otherwise how badly communism failed. Is going back to that a better option?

#3: Despite it's name, the LDPR is basically the same as NSDP. It's a party of far right nationalists who believe in imperialism and racial supremacy. Want to repeat WW2? Vote for them. 

 

So with all that out of the way, the simple reality of Russia is that it's being held together by a corrupt president, or dictator if that's what we want to call him. Russia is just as diverse as the US, but it's not a 2 party system over there led by the same exact agenda. It's a much more real democracy where voting for someone else actually means some very serious change. 

 

So I would ask all critics of Putin, if not him, then who? Who else would you feel more comfortable with in charge? Who do you think Russians would feel more comfortable with in charge? The Communists? The Nazis? I think Putin is the middle ground we all want. 

Problem for the US government, is that he isn't a puppet like Yeltsin was. Putin does what he actually thinks is best for Russia. Not just what we tell him is best. 

In this regard, he has my respect. Even despite my disagreeing with many of his policies and actions. 

 

 

While I genrally agree with the sentiment that Iran is less destructive in many aspects than Saudi Arabia, let's not go too overboard with the praise. While they have indeed never declared a "proper" offensive war (we're talking about the Islamic Republic era), I wouldn't exactly say they're peaceful, when prayers to this day regularly include a wish for the complete annihilation of Israel. As for exual right for women? LOL. Try attending a volley ball match (https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/30/banned-stadiums-being-woman-iran) Here are some other Iranian gender-equality measures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Iran#Women_and_the_Iranian_Revolution

 

Of course Iran hates Israel (and the US). There is even a massive painting across a building a Tehran that says "death to the US" or something like that. But it's only fair to keep in mind that these countries were actively working against the current Iranian regime since before they really took power. Any regime in this situation would be expected to do so, especially when relations have not been normalized for decades. 

We can say the same of North Korea. Sure, NK is ruled by a psycho that the world would be better off without. But people should also understand that North Korea has been under siege from day one. Why do they hate us so much? Because we were hating them long before hating us was popular. And for no other reason than the cold war and "communism is evil".

Same portrait with Iran. Ideologically, they were necessarily opposed to most of their neighbors. We sided with numbers because we were already aligned with Sunni regimes and their former govt. Normal relations at this point would mean slashing at other relations we deem more important. 

 

I never said women's rights in Iran were anything like in the west. It's a hardline Islamic country practicing Islamic law. But in comparison to Saudi Arabia, it's a god damn paradise from heaven itself. I don't mean to praise Iran here, but I really do love to use Iran as a great example of how hypocritical our foreign policy is when compared to our grand ally, Saudi Arabia, epitome and epicenter of all Salafi Jihadism. The very face of everything we've spent the last 15+ years fighting. 

It's ironic, sickening and terrible sad how many people never mention it because they never hear it.

Well, the issue of NK is more complicated, as it's the real world equivalent to what what Orwell described in his 1984. As such, It's a unique case not quite comparable to anything else. Christopher Hitchens famously called NK " a nation of racist dwarves" for the reason that they are taught from birth that they are the worl'ds master race and anyone else is generically inferior. The dwarf comes from the fact that they are a good deal shorter than their southern relatives due to malnutrition.

 

What I'm trying to say, is that all this goes well beyond a normal reaction to being threatened.

 

BTW, there is a brilliant podcsat on the topic of NK, if you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend it:

 

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/must-we-accept-a-nuclear-north-korea

 

Was just good old Rep vs Dem, neither sides rabid supports made this happen, it was the silent "not X" that did it.

Wrong. It was just good old American vs Pakistan. Let's not forget geography. My vote was the one that counted.

 

 

Huh? please explain this one in more then those 4 sentences...

 

 

 

1. The people of the Middle East are not ready nor are they willing to accept Democracy. A limited Monarchy seems to be the sweet spot in terms of general population happiness and relative peace. Middle Eastern nations have been run by a Theocracy or a Monarchy for thousands of years. Its only natural the masses wouldn't immediately flock towards the support of a new form of government.

 

It is not the masses that is the issue, it is the 1% with power (or power dreams) that are. It is just that much more viable to rule by force in the Middle East then it would be in the Western world.

 

Transition is certainly needed instead of radical change (in any direction), but to outright claim that the ME inhabitants are nothing but "big chief worshippers" is a stretch. It isn't like The West is a true democracy in itself anyway...

 

This delusion the west has that democracy is what everyone wants is jut that, a delusion. In Russia, Putin came to power and removed a lot of democracy by popular demand. 

Whats best for some may not be best for all. Culture shock can really take people for a loop.  

 

 

Nobody wants democracy cause everyone is a narcissist on some level, giving everyone some power (how imaginairy it may be) does help to strike a balance.

 

Doesn't mean that people have enough ego to work with the narcissism, hence we have "the silent masses". Alot of nations just work cause of various states of personal bewilderment. If you can satiate the personal narcissist, you can do whatever you want on the side. A ruler shouldn't worry about his subjects ego, he should placate their present desire (how imaginary that may be to said person) and he can rule another day.

 

 

Huh? please explain this one in more then those 4 sentences...

I am a Republican. I am an American. I voted for Donald Trump.

Rafay is not a Democrat. Rafay is a Pakistani. He voted for no one.

Was 6 more sentences a sufficient explanation?

 

Huh? please explain this one in more then those 4 sentences...

I am a Republican. I am an American. I voted for Donald Trump.

Rafay is not a Democrat. Rafay is a Pakistani. He voted for no one.

Was 6 more sentences a sufficient explanation?

 

Can I buy a 7th?

I was just saying I thought the 2016 POTUS Election was more decided in a Rep vs Dem basis (by the silent masses) then on the sexism Rafay linked it to (and said you were guilty off, which for the record I don't think you are guilty off, you are just incredible partisan).

 

If you want to debate over the "outside commentators" of your elections or about "our (foreighn) interest" in their process and results, sure we can go there.

Oh I'm sorry Betsy. I misunderstood your statement. I agree with you about 75%. A Lot of Trump supporters voted for Obama.

Btw, if someone is still confused whether Assad is better than ISIS, just listen to this, as it really hits the point home: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

 

On that note, you may or may not like Sam Harris, but one thing cannot be argued: he makes CRYSTAL clear points with no attempt to ever obfuscate things. A rarity these days.

Btw, if someone is still confused whether Assad is better than ISIS, just listen to this, as it really hits the point home: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want

 

On that note, you may or may not like Sam Harris, but one thing cannot be argued: he makes CRYSTAL clear points with no attempt to ever obfuscate things. A rarity these days.

Excellent explanation, though there are a few details I don't really agree with. Our foreign policy, post colonialism and things like Sykes-Pikot are certainly part of the equation. His rejection of "self doubt" as he calls it is wrong. "It takes two to tango" as they say. 

I don't think he says that colonialism, and foreign policy mistakes do not at all constitute to the problems of the Middle East, that's not the topic of this particular podcast. His point is that ISIS's ideology does not at all concern itself with any particular FP, and is entirely centered on theology. That is not to say that ISIS as an organization hadn't benefited from botched policies.