• 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!

China sends troops into Syria to help Assad

jdog21 said:
Chinese Troops Arrive in Syria to Fight Uyghur Rebels | From the Trenches World ReportFrom the Trenches World Report
https://southfront.org/syrian-state-media-denies-deployment-of-chinese-forces-in-war-torn-country/
No coverage of this on the tv.
Click to expand...

When Obama let down the sides, it look like it saved treasure and showed good intent. But the competitors saw weakness and we lost credibility as an ally. Getting the respect back will be difficult, cost us dearly and maybe be like putting the spirits back into Pandoras Box. I suspect that that President was of Good Wii. But as we all learned, the path to hell is paved with Good Intention.
 
blackjack50 said:
I’m quite surprised they are sending troops. Have they ever done this outside their own region?
Click to expand...

I can't remember them doing so. But they want to set a precedent of projected power.
 
An interesting development. I think the Chinese are also present in Djibouti in Africa. I think VT or RT covered this story too.

It's no wonder at all the MSM doesn't cover this.
 
joG said:
I can't remember them doing so. But they want to set a precedent of projected power.
Click to expand...

I read more. They did back in 2015. :shrug: weird
 
We might see more of this. One of the biggest advantages that the US military has over the Chinese military that many people don’t think of is that the current US military is filled with experienced war veterans whereas the current Chinese military has hardly any real world experience.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I'm going to need a MUCH more reliable source than that to take the claim seriously.
Click to expand...

A quick Google search reveals stories all over the place: from "no" to "yes" to "they will" and "they have."
 
blackjack50 said:
I’m quite surprised they are sending troops. Have they ever done this outside their own region?
Click to expand...

No, that's the USA that illegally invades countries the world over, for well over a century. Steals, rapes and pillages, creates death squads, rapes women, men and children, carpet bombs, ... .
 
blackjack50 said:
I’m quite surprised they are sending troops. Have they ever done this outside their own region?
Click to expand...

They sent troops to Sudan. Chinese troops participated in the genocide there.
 
camlok said:
No, that's the USA that illegally invades countries the world over, for well over a century. Steals, rapes and pillages, creates death squads, rapes women, men and children, carpet bombs, ... .
Click to expand...

:shrug: Someone has to keep the world from falling apart. Last time I checked...since we took over as Sheriff Nobody has decided that a conflict in the balkans is worth killing 80 million people. We also haven’t elected an Adolf or a Stalin or Mao. . :shrug:
 
blackjack50 said:
:shrug: Someone has to keep the world from falling apart. Last time I checked...since we took over as Sheriff Nobody has decided that a conflict in the balkans is worth killing 80 million people. We also haven’t elected an Adolf or a Stalin or Mao. . :shrug:
Click to expand...

Those guys are dead, dude.

We have elected a Dubya, a Gunslinger Barack, and now the Main Guy on The Apprentice. We're way ahead in the war criminal as president category.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Those guys are dead, dude.

We have elected a Dubya, a Gunslinger Barack, and now the Main Guy on The Apprentice. We're way ahead in the war criminal as president category.
Click to expand...

Ah. The ***** liberal “war criminal” argument. Nobody listed by you is a war criminal by any standard stretch of then definition. It takes a radical political theorist to do so. Just remember...the United States has never started a world war. We just finish them and prevent them. The United States played a major role in holding back the USSR as well. Go figure
 
blackjack50 said:
Ah. The ***** liberal “war criminal” argument. Nobody listed by you is a war criminal by any standard stretch of then definition. It takes a radical political theorist to do so. Just remember...the United States has never started a world war. We just finish them and prevent them. The United States played a major role in holding back the USSR as well. Go figure
Click to expand...

I hate to tell you old buddy old pal, but Dubya and Company were actually convicted of war crimes in April 2012 in Malaysia. Obama should be, but so far he hasn't. I'm hoping Francis Boyle will get him too.
 
blackjack50 said:
The United States played a major role in holding back the USSR as well. Go figure
Click to expand...

Which prevented the spread of liberalism and socialism. No wonder so many modern day libs are furious at the GOP.
 
Not too surprising. China has been pushing economic influence in Africa and beyond since the 1990s.

- After the Cold War, Clinton's foreign policy centered around humanitarian efforts in a world where Bush Sr.'s policy engaged with world organizations. This was largely over issues in Europe while he ignored genocides in Africa. In the mean time, the IMF began setting new conditions for loans during this "humanitarian" period. They refused to give loans to certain African governments unless they made socioeconomic and political changes to fit the requirements. This was based on American and European insistence. Well, China rolled in and started writing checks with no conditions. It proved that, while basing a foreign policy more on Liberal ideology is smart long-term policy, it cannot be blind to the realpolitik of the moment.

- Bush was continuing Clinton's policy before 9/11, but without the insistence that a dude in a cave could ever be a threat. With 9/11 in the rear view, Bush's more neo-Conservative foreign policy largely centered on terrorism and Islamism in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and only northern Africa. It was not just about Afghanistan and Iraq. Economic and military aid began to involve subtle demands for sociopolitical change (the more enduring effort against Islamist terrorism). This can be measured by looking at newly created laws here and there across the region, but Bush couldn't make his argument because he wasn't smart enough.

- Obama's "wait-and-see" foreign policy merely addressed issues as they arose. It was almost entirely reactive in nature, especially due to the Arab Spring. Obama continued most of Bush's policy towards governments, but was a complete failure in terms of politically and economically supporting new democracies. He greatly increased UAV targeting across the region, but largely refrained from getting off the fence in regards to what may or may not happen in each individual country as dictators (our allies) either fell or hung on. This left us decisively weak and without conviction to stand for our own professed principles or expressed regional goals in a post support-your-friendly-dictator world. Obama's policy was neither Liberal, nor Neo-Con. It was as neutral as our policy was before World War I.

- Trump's foreign policy is simply still undefined, but embraces Obama's "wait-and-see" policy more haphazardly as he flips and flops all over the place, which leaves us even more unpredictable and unreliable. Now, even our allies stand next to our enemies to condemn us.

In the mean time, China had been bankrolling African governments this whole time and gaining more and more influence. Russia constantly snubbed the U.S. over Ukraine and Syria. Ukraine proved that we have limits and will not move to defend even an ally if Russia invades. Of course, this wasn't a great move on Russia's part either because Crimea has proven to be a great economic and political pain to Putin; and the rest of Ukraine was pushed to the West now, despite the West proving useless to them. With Russia still proving to strongly embrace the strong man, Obama was inconsistent in Syria, supported the opposition poorly, and made declarations against war crimes as Putin flipped us off. Syria belongs to Russia. And with Trump's BS comments and declarations against China, China has merely pushed forward to join Russia in the Syrian victory over the U.S. and seek to widen its African influence into the Middle East.

"America First" is a welcome mat for others to assume our leadership positions. We have been backing away from "greatness" since Clinton and fumbling about inconsistently ever since because Conservatives and Liberals would rather have their heads up their political asses than understand the world they live in. Without the unifying fight against communism of the Cold War, we have been clueless as to our purpose. Trump is tripling down. Empty and largely pointless rocket attacks on Syria for chemical weapons use as Russia wins Syria? Absurd military threats to a nuclear armed North Korea? "Taking names" over Jerusalem? We have made ourselves a laughing stock and presented ourselves as an empty shell.

And as history has proven twice, it is not America that will start a World War. It's our absence.
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
Which prevented the spread of liberalism and socialism. No wonder so many modern day libs are furious at the GOP.
Click to expand...

Considering that Western Europe embraced liberalism and many socialist systems, I would actually learn about these things before you toss them about.

The U.S. attacked the spread of communism, which is an economic system that opposed capitalism. In the mean time, you live in a liberal country that maintains many social programs.

And wasn't it the vast majority of the Conservatives who proved their disgust with the GOP by voting for Trump?
 
reinoe said:
Which prevented the spread of liberalism and socialism. No wonder so many modern day libs are furious at the GOP.
Click to expand...

Liberalism is not socialism ;)

Liberalism is very similar to modern day conservatism. Unless you are talking about modern liberalism as in liberal democrats in the United States lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom