[Balancer]

The US had no evidence for Saddam's WMD. False. He use them against the Kurds, which they originally tried to frame Iran for.

And here is the trick. Yes, Iraq used chemical weapons. But after 1991, as a result of the defeat in the war and according to the UN resolution, Iraq destroyed its stockpiles of chemical weapons and the means of its production. And so, when Colin Powell shook his test tube at the UN in 2003, Iraq had no chemical weapons for a long time. And this in the US was later recognized.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... -curveball

[Balancer]

RIP 100+ Russians.

If you believe the United States, then killed about 100 supporters of the regime.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcript ... ia-teleco/

Without an indication of nationality. If you collect all the data now known, then more or less you can believe in 5 real dead Russians and you can admit up to 10-20 killed soldiers PMC. And not all of them are Russian.

[JohnRawls]

If you believe the United States, then killed about 100 supporters of the regime.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcript ... ia-teleco/

Without an indication of nationality. If you collect all the data now known, then more or less you can believe in 5 real dead Russians and you can admit up to 10-20 killed soldiers PMC. And not all of them are Russian.

That is not what Mr. Girkin said. He is a decent source because even though he is a decent commander, he is a bad politician who talks too much about things that are usually not said.

[Rich]

And here is the trick. Yes, Iraq used chemical weapons. But after 1991, as a result of the defeat in the war and according to the UN resolution, Iraq destroyed its stockpiles of chemical weapons and the means of its production. And so, when Colin Powell shook his test tube at the UN in 2003, Iraq had no chemical weapons for a long time. And this in the US was later recognized.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... -curveball

The fact that Saddam had destroyed his chemical weapons was irrelevant. He would have rebuilt them as soon as the US were deflected by another more pressing threat. North Korea has totally vindicated the invasion of Iraq. Even if Saddam's Jihadism was somewhat fake there was no guarantee that one of his successors wouldn't throw in his lot with the Sunni Jihadis.

[Hindsite]

Some additional news that are not being reported:

Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/forces-hit ... cial-says/

It is regarding the above mentioned news. Apparently a bunch of Syrian and Russian mercs tried to storm a SDF compound that had American advisors inside. Pretty well equipped group with artillery and tanks. But they were basically massacred by the US forces.

Little thing to note, those forces mostly considered of "Vagner" PMC which is the notorious russian military corp who fights in Ukraine, Syria etc. Apparently this SDF headquaters was based in a oil production factory, so they wanted to "aquire" an asset i guess. Tough luck on there being a American Advisors inside. Russian military also apparently said "it is not us" when the US asked. Seems the Russian army has trouble keeping its Mercs in line who are not part of the military.

RIP 100+ Russians.

Since they are no longer part of the Russian military, Putin does not have to report their deaths as military deaths. If Putin wants to keep them in line, perhaps more money would do it.

[JohnRawls]

Since they are no longer part of the Russian military, Putin does not have to report their deaths as military deaths. If Putin wants to keep them in line, perhaps more money would do it.

There is no limit to human greed. They are not paid badly and they are not really paid by Putin. As i said, they are a military contractor like Academy, a private entity.

[Atlantis]

The fact that Saddam had destroyed his chemical weapons was irrelevant. He would have rebuilt them as soon as the US were deflected by another more pressing threat. North Korea has totally vindicated the invasion of Iraq. Even if Saddam's Jihadism was somewhat fake there was no guarantee that one of his successors wouldn't throw in his lot with the Sunni Jihadis.

By the same reasoning you could argue that there is an outside chance that the EU might morph into a superstate in some distant future (in fact that is the narrative the imperialists are spreading). Your reasoning dictates that the British nuke the continent now, before it is too late.

Saddam was the only thing that stood between us and terrorism. Your people together with the Yanks is the greatest promoter of terror worldwide. As we are speaking you are complicit in bombing Yemen back into the stone ages.

Kim has no choice but to develop a nuclear force because without it, he would meet the same fate as Saddam and Qaddafi without fail.

[roxunreal]

Russia Is Taking Over Syria’s Oil And Gas
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... d-Gas.html

It's not imperialism if America doesn't do it

[Balancer]

That is not what Mr. Girkin said. He is a decent source because even though he is a decent commander, he is a bad politician who talks too much about things that are usually not said.

As we in Russia, many say - "we well distinguish Strelkov and Girkin". Strelkov - this is his pseudonym, under which he was known during the defense of Slavyansk. This is a really talented field commander. But when he starts touching something else - his authority is rapidly falling.

The number of 600 dead has no confirmation. And simply unreal huge. Most likely Girkin voiced rumors in which the total number of participants in the attack was counted for the number of killed Russians.

Similarly, probably, the number "200" has arisen. In Russia, even since the time of Afghanistan, the dead are called a "cargo of two hundred." Or just "two hundredth". Somewhere in the way of rumors a report from a dozen "two hundredth" turned into "two hundred dead."

Now the most reliable rumors are about 10-20 killed soldiers PMC. This is not only citizens of Russia, but also residents of the former USSR. How many of them are Russians is not yet known. Surnames of five of them were soundly announced.

[Balancer]

Even if Saddam's Jihadism was somewhat fake there was no guarantee ...

Saddam, by the standards of the Middle East, was a secular ruler. Strong, authoritarian, aggressive, but - secular. Just the development of Islamism / jihadism in the Middle East is the West. The West removes moderate secular leaders and leads to the power of Islamists. Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak - they were not Islamists. And after their change, Islamists come to power. The same attempt happened with secular Assad. But he was saved. And today Syria is one small islet in the region where representatives of non-Islamic religions can feel themselves at least a bit in safety.

[Crantag]

Russia Is Taking Over Syria’s Oil And Gas
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... d-Gas.html

It's not imperialism if America doesn't do it

This seems like a strange comment, because the US is never called imperialist among polite company.

When Russia annexed the Crimea (which they really had no choice but to do), the international outrage by polite society though was beyond palpable.

[Balancer]

Since they are no longer part of the Russian military, Putin does not have to report their deaths as military deaths. If Putin wants to keep them in line, perhaps more money would do it.

In fact, I believe there will be a lot of new rumors about losses among Russian private military. In Russia, soon elections and opponents for additional destabilization use all possible means. Rumors about losses in the middle of PMCs are very convenient tool. It is impossible to prove the absence of such losses. You can declare their presence in any combat actions. Based idea will be - "Russia always betrays its soldiers" and "Syria - the second Afghanistan." Yesterday, there was new information that another 15 private Russian soldiers were killed in the explosion of the ammunition depot. As always, it is impossible to verify such information. And so this option is especially useful in the information attack against Russia. We are waiting for new similar statements.

[skinster]

It's not imperialism if America doesn't do it

Russia was invited to Syria by its government to help against the outside forces attempting to destabilize the country. The US was not. The former is an ally helping to defend the country and the latter is an imperialist and occupying force in Syria (along with its regional mercenaries).

The distinction matters, even if pro-US/zionist/wahabi cheerleaders pretend otherwise.

[Hindsite]

Russia was invited to Syria by its government to help against the outside forces attempting to destabilize the country. The US was not. The former is an ally helping to defend the country and the latter is an imperialist and occupying force in Syria (along with its regional mercenaries).

The distinction matters, even if pro-US/zionist/wahabi cheerleaders pretend otherwise.

The U.S. forces are not an occupying force in Syria.
Where did you get that propaganda?

[skinster]

Yes they are. Unless you can show me that time the Syrian government invited the US to the country.

[Hindsite]

Yes they are. Unless you can show me that time the Syrian government invited the US to the country.

The U.S. forces do not have to be invited to strike targets in Syria. They do not have to be occupying Syria to attack either. When Syria gassed those babies, President Trump commanded the U.S. Ships in the sea to make missile strikes into Syria. Praise the Lord.

[JohnRawls]

As we in Russia, many say - "we well distinguish Strelkov and Girkin". Strelkov - this is his pseudonym, under which he was known during the defense of Slavyansk. This is a really talented field commander. But when he starts touching something else - his authority is rapidly falling.

The number of 600 dead has no confirmation. And simply unreal huge. Most likely Girkin voiced rumors in which the total number of participants in the attack was counted for the number of killed Russians.

Similarly, probably, the number "200" has arisen. In Russia, even since the time of Afghanistan, the dead are called a "cargo of two hundred." Or just "two hundredth". Somewhere in the way of rumors a report from a dozen "two hundredth" turned into "two hundred dead."

Now the most reliable rumors are about 10-20 killed soldiers PMC. This is not only citizens of Russia, but also residents of the former USSR. How many of them are Russians is not yet known. Surnames of five of them were soundly announced.

I am pretty fluent in 4 languages. (One of them is Russian) So do not worry. I know what you are trying to say but Girkin did state that there were many casualties(Over 100 for sure).

Also the event itself is not disputed by US or Russia, it did happen. Russian MOD also constantly updates its figured on this event. First it was 0 then it was 1 now it is 5 "Russian soldiers" killed there.

[Rich]

Saddam, by the standards of the Middle East, was a secular ruler. Strong, authoritarian, aggressive, but - secular. Just the development of Islamism / jihadism in the Middle East is the West. The West removes moderate secular leaders

So I guess according to you, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot would all count as moderate secular leaders. The Shia government post 2003 has been way better than Saddam. The government of Iran has been way better than Saddam. Saddam's regime and the sanctions fuelled the growth of extreme Islam both inside the country and internationally.

The Iranian experiment on the other hand, while a million miles from perfect has allowed more and more Iranians to turn away from Islam and Theocracy. The latest demonstrations showed that scepticism and disolutionment with Islamic Theocracy is now penetrating even the poorer sections of Iran not just the educated middle classes. In the 16th and 17th centuries, Britain, Holland and New England all went through periods of Protestant theocracy, that led to the rejection of theocracy and the beginnings of secularism. but this was part of the long process of democratisation.

[JohnRawls]

:lol: So I guess according to you, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot would all count as moderate secular leaders. The Shia government post 2003 has been way better than Saddam. The government of Iran has been way better than Saddam. Saddam's regime and the sanctions fuelled the growth of extreme Islam both inside the country and internationally.

The Iranian experiment on the other hand, while a million miles from perfect has allowed more and more Iranians to turn away from Islam and Theocracy. The latest demonstrations showed that scepticism and disolutionment with Islamic Theocracy is now penetrating even the poorer sections of Iran not just the educated middle classes. In the 16th and 17th centuries, Britain, Holland and New England all went through periods of Protestant theocracy, that led to the rejection of theocracy and the beginnings of secularism. but this was part of the long process of democratisation.

He is correct in saying that Saddam was a secular ruler. He was fighting his religions neibhour for quite some time and understood that religion, is a general threat to his rule. He tolerated it to a degree though.

Saddam only embraced Islam during his execution which helped ISIS become ISIS. Basically he wanted to die a death of a martyr. For him, this was merely a tool at the end of his life when he thought that he was executed unjustly to undermine both US and current Iraq governments.

He was not stupid, he knew what he was doing.

But calling him a crazed fanatic because of what he did at the end of his life is stretching it a bit too far.

[roxunreal]

This seems like a strange comment, because the US is never called imperialist among polite company.

What is polite company? Go to any online place of debate about MENA and the US will be called imperialist by every other person.

Yes they are. Unless you can show me that time the Syrian government invited the US to the country.

They are in Syria on the behalf of the local population in the area of their presence. The government that wants them there is the government of the DFNS.

There's no distinction between two powers helping out a side in a war and possibly getting compensated with lucrative contracts for their effort. The only distinction is that when the US does it (and unlike Russia, it doesn't even have contracts involving Syrian oil in SDF areas, not yet anyay), it's popular to play Che Guevara and scream the "imperialism" buzzword, but when a country opposed to the US does exactly the same thing, suddenly it's double-standard-o'clock and the "imperialism" magically turns into "it's a deal".