Hey Crackeress, can you help? I'm thinking that you could yell about how the Syrian conflict is not a civil war, then post some Wikipedia articles about the conflict that are entitled, "the Syrian civil war."
That should do it.
Me: "How is it between the US and Russia, given that zero US troops are fighting there? How many Russian soldiers are fighting on Assad's side?"
Crackeress: "rotardo, maybe you should crawl under your rock and stay there since you are so oblivious to life in the real world"
Crackeress, that is not an answer.
Okay rotard, to make the story simple in hopes you might grasp ..........
Once upon a time, there were two great super powers in the world - Russia and the United States. Each needed oil for their economies. At the time, most oil was in the middle east. So each established its connections within the various ME countries. Something of a balance of power was achieved between the US and Russia imperialistic puppet states. Of course, the rulers of which ever had to be conducive to playing which ever game dictated by which ever great country they aligned with. The middle east became relatively stable and oil flowed.
Iran - the world's third largest producer of oil - freed itself of puppetry of the US in 1979. Then the USSR, Russia's gov at the time, collapsed into bankruptcy and Russia's status as a competing super power to the US waned. So one day some guys (Israeli and American) realized that hey, there was no competing power to the US anymore as Russia was too weakened with financial woes to counter balance any of our aggressive imperialistic conquests. What an opportunity!!! They devised a plan for what is commonly referred to as hegemony - Israeli/US rule of the world.
First stages of achieving the plan involved "regime changes" and realignments of middle eastern countries not under Israeli/US puppet strings. The first tier included Afghanistan and Iraq. Then problems - debt and economic crisis, and regime change in the US. So Presidential switch, minor adjustments to plans and on it has proceeded. The second tier included Libya and Syria. The third tier is Iran - the really big snare. But Iran is not as any of the others and ready to fight. US has lost much support since Iraq. Israel will have to help this time. Problem is no one will give them the needed airspace for attack. So they have to get control of Syria before attacking Iran.
One of the big step backs to occur was that Russia, aligned with Syria for decades, decided that Syria was too strategically important to them to let go of. Russia for the first time in decades has stood up against the US.
Both countries are now battling for Syria, just not face to face but rather by proxy.
"Politicians are not an authority on the English language, nor are they honest."
I agree that Ron Paul is dishonest.
"Journalists will follow suit. So what? That does not make something so. The conflict in Syria is a regional conflict. "
Crackeress, it was YOU who claimed that only "Israel" thought it was a civil war. And I humiliated you by showing that every single serious news outlet, and your own hero Ron Paul, consider it a civil war. But apparently every political reporter and every politician in the world is wrong. Only a GED Failuress from a trailer park in Texas, who thinks that Costa Rica is next to "Columbia," and that the Secretary of State's first name is "Hilliary" and that Benghazi is in "Lybia," knows the real score.
" If you really want to argue the issue, the American Civil War was the northern diction for the battle. The south called it the Northern War of Aggression. The south had the more proper term."
Yes, I am sure that every textbook in America, and every serious historian, calls it "The War of Northern Aggression" (never mind that the South started the war by firing cannonballs at Ft Sumter). I just loved that Ken Burns series called "The American War of Northern Aggression."
Me, I call it the #$%$ Crackers up the Rear Party." That is the MOST proper term. Baaaaa ha aha ha ha ha ha ha ha,
"Hey Crackeress, can you help? I'm thinking that you could yell about how the Syrian conflict is not a civil war, then post some Wikipedia articles about the conflict that are entitled, "the Syrian civil war."
Hey rotardo, what is the point posting an article when you are too stupid to read the first few sentences before shooting your mouth and making a fool out of yourself thinking you were proven right when in fact, you were not. As the wiki article explains, the conflict in Syria is a REGIONAL conflict, not a civil war. The majority of the opposition is foreign.
Definition of civil war: A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic
As the wiki article explains, the conflict in Syria is a REGIONAL conflict, not a civil war.
Ahem. The Wikpedia article does indeed state the Syrian conflict is REGIONAL (i's in Syria!); but it most certainly does not claim it is not a civil war.
Go and sober up before replying, Mary.
what is the point posting an article when you are too stupid to read the first few sentences
Uh, the FIRST sentence of your post said "The Syrian civil war."
Just because other parties joined in afterwards, once things got started, does not change the fact that, at heart, it is a civil war. The British built ships for the Confederacy and British-built ships ran Union blockades during the American civil war; does that mean it was NOT a "civil war"? Thousands of foreign volunteers and tons of foreign aid from multiple countries was supplied to both the Nationalists and the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). Does that make it NOT a "civil war"?
Crackeress is literally the world's best argument for euthanasia.
baaaaaa ha aa ha ha ha ha ha ha