• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kerry Slams Russia for 'Enabling' Assad to stay in Power.....

OldWorldOrder said:
None of this makes any sense. Kerry just pointed out that Russia is helping Assad and the US doesn't like Assad. That's it.
Click to expand...

The only thing that don't make sense......is someone saying such, that isn't up on the whole situation. Otherwise the English words and their meanings applies.

Actually Kerry is still pointing out Assad must go and he is what's holding up progress.
 
MMC said:
The only thing that don't make sense......is someone saying such, that isn't up on the whole situation. Otherwise the English words and their meanings applies.
Click to expand...

lol no

Actually Kerry is still pointing out Assad must go and he is what's holding up progress.
Click to expand...

Progress in what? The US' goal in Syria is to see Assad gone.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
lol no



Progress in what? The US' goal in Syria is to see Assad gone.
Click to expand...


:lol: Yes, and in correlation with all that I said and to what it implies.

Well what do you think Kerry means by progress.....especially since they consider that happens when Assad is gone?

Yeah And.....they want to see Assad gone. So what!
 
MMC said:
:lol: Yes, and in correlation with all that I said and to what it implies.
Click to expand...

Can you diagram this sentence for me? What is the subject? Object? I guess the verb is "said"? But that might be a gerund? Seriously, what does this mean?

Well what do you think Kerry means by progress.....especially since they consider that happens when Assad is gone?
Click to expand...

Kerry didn't use the word progress, you did. So I don't what he "means" by something he didn't say.

Yeah And.....they want to see Assad gone. So what!
Click to expand...

So he made a comment about it. So nothing. Nonstory.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Can you diagram this sentence for me? What is the subject? Object? I guess the verb is "said"? But that might be a gerund? Seriously, what does this mean?



Kerry didn't use the word progress, you did. So I don't what he "means" by something he didn't say.



So he made a comment about it. So nothing. Nonstory.
Click to expand...



Look, if you don't know what the issue is all about.....then you got nothing. Moreover if you can't figure out the US acting in Saudi interests over our own. Then you will never figure out what that US Foreign Policy for the ME is about.

When you catch up to speed.....get back with me.
 
MMC said:
Look, if you don't know what the issue is all about.....then you got nothing.
Click to expand...

So you're not gonna diagram that trainwreck of a sentence? Who said I didn't know what the issue is all about?

Moreover if you can't figure out the US acting in Saudi interests over our own. Then you will never figure out what that US Foreign Policy for the ME is about.
Click to expand...

Except that still has nothing to do with anything. The US hasn't liked the Syrian regime dating back well into the Cold War. But let's say you're right and it's dumb to be against Assad: that still doesn't make what Kerry said noteworthy in any way, because it's such common knowledge that it's hilarious that you would be up in arms about this simple comment.

When you catch up to speed.....get back with me.
Click to expand...

When you can stop putting words in people's mouths when you're trying to make a point (lol "what did Kerry mean by progress?" lol YOU SAID IT HAHAHA!) please let me know. And diagram that horrible ****ing sentence please. It's making my eyes bleed trying to figure out your point.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So you're not gonna diagram that trainwreck of a sentence? Who said I didn't know what the issue is all about?



Except that still has nothing to do with anything. The US hasn't like the Syrian regime dating back to the Cold War. But let's say you're right and it's dumb to be against Assad: that still doesn't make what Kerry said noteworthy in any way, because it's such common knowledge that it's hilarious that you would be up in arms about this simple comment.



When you can type a sentenc without your Parkinson's flaring up, let me know. Diagram that horrible ****ing sentence please. It's making my eyes bleed trying to figure out your point.
Click to expand...


You said..... and with all you said. Pretty much puts it into the perspective it is. :roll:

Yeah, its noteworthy after Geneva 2. But it is understandable why you can't figure that out.

Sure....when you figure out what I said about the Saudi interest being over ours. Don't let that English.....cause the limitation to dwell.
 
MMC said:
You said..... and with all you said.
Click to expand...

This sentence makes no sense.

Pretty much puts it into the perspective it is. :roll:
Click to expand...

This...might sorta make sense? But not really. I think you're saying something negative about me? Maybe? I give up.

Yeah, its noteworthy after Geneva 2. But it is understandable why you can't figure that out.
Click to expand...

lol no, it's not noteworthy.

- The US has been supporting the rebels to some extent.
- The US wants Assad to lose.
- Kerry denounced Russia supporting the side the US wants to lose.
- Kerry is the American Secretary of State.

Sure....when you figure out what I said about the Saudi interest being over ours.
Click to expand...

When I figure it out...what? What will I do then?

Don't let that English.....cause the limitation to dwell.
Click to expand...

What English? I don't even know what "limitation to dwell" means. Doesn't even look like it's a figure of speech at all. Can you explain what that means? Can you explain why you implied that Kerry talked about progress when he did not and only you did?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
This sentence makes no sense.



This...might sorta make sense? But not really. I think you're saying something negative about me? Maybe? I give up.



lol no, it's not noteworthy.

- The US has been supporting the rebels to some extent.
- The US wants Assad to lose.
- Kerry denounced Russia supporting the side the US wants to lose.
- Kerry is the American Secretary of State.



When I figure it out...what? What will I do then?



What English? I don't even know what "limitation to dwell" means. Doesn't even look like it's a figure of speech at all. Can you explain what that means? Can you explain why you implied that Kerry talked about progress when he did not and only you did?
Click to expand...


"What".....you back for more. :doh

Yes its noteworthy after Geneva 2. Do keep up with what the Media and those Pundits are talking about. Just sayin!
 
the UN conference/talks preconditioned on a transitional gov't ;however I am not sure Syria ever accepted that
-and if they ever did they took it off the table at the very first meeting of Geneva2 - when they had to meet in separate rooms.

It is a non starter. Clinging to this idea means absolutely no ability to negotiate any possible cease fire.
Homs was evacuated over a period of days by the UN, but the shelling was going on for the first few days.

"Assad must go" isn't gong to happen, at least by any talks.
 
MMC said:
"What".....you back for more. :doh

Yes its noteworthy after Geneva 2. Do keep up with what the Media and those Pundits are talking about. Just sayin!
Click to expand...

No, it's not. You just repeating yourself doesn't change that. Thanks for using understandable diction, though.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
None of this makes any sense. Kerry just pointed out that Russia is helping Assad and the US doesn't like Assad. That's it.
Click to expand...

It's more than the USA doesn't like Assad. We are creating the insurrection and arming the terrorists and then attempting to impose our will upon the Syrian people that for the majority approve of Assad. We screwed up Iraq. We screwed up Libya. We screwed up Egypt. We are trying to screw up Syria and Ukraine. I think the USA has a large debt to Assad for maintaining a certain amount of regional stability during the Iraq imbroglio. We, the USA, are the terrorists. That's a fact, Jack. A forked tongue Sec'y of State, controlled media, influential Corporate players with an OIL agenda and simple hegemony are not a good foundation for anything, excepting HYPOCRISY.
 
DaveFagan said:
It's more than the USA doesn't like Assad. We are creating the insurrection
Click to expand...

This is patently false, so the rest of your "DOWN WITH THE MAN!" diatribe becomes a meaningless non sequitur.

I always find it cute when you can tell someone people used to believe the US were the "good guys". They found out that they weren't (no one is a "good guy", grow up lol- no one is a "bad guy" either), so they automatically now think of them as the "bad guy". Totally incapable of seeing anything other than black and white.
 
DaveFagan said:
It's more than the USA doesn't like Assad. We are creating the insurrection and arming the terrorists and then attempting to impose our will upon the Syrian people that for the majority approve of Assad. We screwed up Iraq. We screwed up Libya. We screwed up Egypt. We are trying to screw up Syria and Ukraine. I think the USA has a large debt to Assad for maintaining a certain amount of regional stability during the Iraq imbroglio. We, the USA, are the terrorists. That's a fact, Jack. A forked tongue Sec'y of State, controlled media, influential Corporate players with an OIL agenda and simple hegemony are not a good foundation for anything, excepting HYPOCRISY.
Click to expand...

Has anyone thought about that Assad staying in power as a more or less secular ruler might be the best of some very bad outcomes? Like an Islamic republic or a government run by AQ
 
Perotista said:
Has anyone thought about that Assad staying in power as a more or less secular ruler might be the best of some very bad outcomes? Like an Islamic republic or a government run by AQ
Click to expand...

Worked for the Klingons and the Federation. Why not the 22nd Century NWO. :2razz:
 
Perotista said:
Has anyone thought about that Assad staying in power as a more or less secular ruler might be the best of some very bad outcomes? Like an Islamic republic or a government run by AQ
Click to expand...
I don't see any viable alternative to Assad that favors US/UN or regional interests. an Islamic state would be OK, but it would depend on who has the power.

The last thing we want is a radical state, or even partitioning of Syria- if the states are too small, it just invites more "civil wars"
( I put it in quotes because this is more then an internal Syrian war).

About the best we can do is try to negotiate some kind of stalemate; leaving Assad strong enough that the foreign fighter will leave - having no ability to maintain the positions.
Tamp down the internal al_Nusra and see if the place can stop it's war.

The next problem is the country is in shambles, and the refugees, but until the war stops nothing can be done
 
Perotista said:
Has anyone thought about that Assad staying in power as a more or less secular ruler might be the best of some very bad outcomes? Like an Islamic republic or a government run by AQ
Click to expand...

It's probably best in the long run. Allowing this continue for a bit longer could hold some attraction for Western powers, though.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
This is patently false, so the rest of your "DOWN WITH THE MAN!" diatribe becomes a meaningless non sequitur.

I always find it cute when you can tell someone people used to believe the US were the "good guys". They found out that they weren't (no one is a "good guy", grow up lol- no one is a "bad guy" either), so they automatically now think of them as the "bad guy". Totally incapable of seeing anything other than black and white.
Click to expand...

Endless links can be provided to show the USA is sending money and arms to the terrorists. CIA. Saudi. Bandar Bush. Get your head out of that can and remove your very narrow blinders. They's a real world out there.
 
DaveFagan said:
Endless links can be provided to show the USA is sending money and arms to the terrorists. CIA. Saudi. Bandar Bush. Get your head out of that can and remove your very narrow blinders. They's a real world out there.
Click to expand...

And you should join it. None of that means the US created the insurrection, nor does it even mean it would have ceased existing had the US not supported it.
 
annata said:
I don't see any viable alternative to Assad that favors US/UN or regional interests. an Islamic state would be OK, but it would depend on who has the power.

The last thing we want is a radical state, or even partitioning of Syria- if the states are too small, it just invites more "civil wars"
( I put it in quotes because this is more then an internal Syrian war).

About the best we can do is try to negotiate some kind of stalemate; leaving Assad strong enough that the foreign fighter will leave - having no ability to maintain the positions.
Tamp down the internal al_Nusra and see if the place can stop it's war.

The next problem is the country is in shambles, and the refugees, but until the war stops nothing can be done
Click to expand...


What happens if the Saud and Qataris aid stops to the Rebels/Terrorists?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
And you should join it. None of that means the US created the insurrection, nor does it even mean it would have ceased existing had the US not supported it.
Click to expand...

Right, and if it's dark, it's hard to thread needles. You spew nonsense and the Media talking points like you're in the real World, which you are not.
 
MMC said:
What happens if the Saud and Qataris aid stops to the Rebels/Terrorists?
Click to expand...
I would think that would dry up the Sunnis.
But I don't know, as the battlefield is most of the country, and the weapons are there. Anyways. The goal has to be to get the regional powers to stop supporting their proxies.

One reason Iran should have been included in the talks, but Kerry had a ~snitfit~ so they were dis-invited, again because of this "transitional" nonsense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom