Power of Story Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (5 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   32 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Is Putin Right?

By       Message Joseph Clifford       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 6   Valuable 6   Must Read 5  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 93960
From flickr.com/photos/47422005@N04/13220749473/: Obama Putin Faceoff - Caricatures
Obama Putin Faceoff - Caricatures
(Image by DonkeyHotey)
  Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

If you listened or watched Putin of late, you can see he may well be right, and we may well be wrong about Syria. Yes, he backed Assad, and has done so since the Civil War began 4 years ago, but his rational for doing so is interesting. He argues that if Assad falls, Syria will descend into utter chaos, and in the end there will be no one to fight or stop the growth of ISIS like groups in Syria. Chaos, he argues, is a breeding ground for extremist terrorist groups like ISIS. He lectured Charlie Rose, by reviewing the US adventure and absolute disaster in Iraq, but poor Charlie didn't get it. Putin reviewed the history of the US relationship with Saddam Hussein, reminding us that at one time Hussein was our friend, but for some reason we turned on him and decided he had to be overthrown. Not only did we overthrow and kill Saddam Hussein, but the entire Iraqi government was instantly disbanded by the US. All government offices were closed, and all government personnel were thrown out of their positions into the streets. There was no one to govern or preserve order. At the same time the US ordered the Iraqi army of 400,000 to disband, so they too went home with their military weapons, but unemployed and with no government in existence. The entire infrastructure of the nation had been destroyed by US bombs, then we tore down the government, dissolved the army and law, and threw everyone into the streets with guns but no jobs, and no one to maintain order. Gee I wonder what would happen?? No one could have planned a better way to insure anarchy. Give us credit; if anarchy was the goal, we planned and executed it to perfection. Do you really believe the architects of US foreign policy are that stupid? This was done by design.

Mr Putin also pointed out that Hillary Clinton's 77-day bombing excursion in Libya accomplished the same thing. For those who might not know, it was Hillary the Hawk, who almost all by herself orchestrated the US bombing campaign directed at Libya. She battled those in the administration who saw this as dangerous and foolish and prevailed; she got her war and insured anarchy in Libya which is now a failed state, characterized by chaos, and it is also a breeding ground for extremist terrorist groups.

So Putin's logic is that a nation without any form of government will be a failed state characterized by anarchy, chaos, death, and a rapid rise of terrorism. Make sense? Why of course it does; it is not rocket science, it is just common sense. He backs Assad, because without Assad, Syria becomes another Iraq or Libya. Assad might not be the best, but he is the only game in town and has managed to maintain some semblance of control over his nation, but if he falls, and the entire structure of his government falls as well, look to Iraq to see what will happen. Do we want another Iraq in Syria? It appears we do. If you look at the footprint of the US in the Middle East, anarchy appears to be the goal, for that is the result of our involvement as evidenced by the sheer disaster in Iraq and Libya, and soon that same anarchy will prevail in Afghanistan, Yemen, and possibly spread to Pakistan. The US has adopted a policy of "creative chaos", while Putin appears to have the more rational and logical argument. The US is outraged that Russia is now involved in the bombing of Syria. The US has bombed 14 nations in the Middle East, and is insulted that Russia has joined one bombing party because we want Syria to be our exclusive playground. Already the Russians interfered and foiled our previous desire to bomb Syria, by getting Assad to rid his nation of all chemical weapons. Additionally, in 2012, Russia had apparently brokered diplomatically, some kind of deal that would have Assad either stepping aside or sharing power, but the US snubbed the plan. Certainly Putin is no angel and has his own agenda. He knows full well that anarchy in Syria will ultimately mean many more terrorists, and many of those will return to places like Chechnya and attack Russia, but at least he has some logic and foresight to anticipate the results of yet another failed state at the hands of the US.

Why can't those Russians just get out and leave us to our "playground"? Shame on them, always using diplomacy to attempt to resolve things peacefully and stop us from bombing people.

- Advertisement -

 

- Advertisement -

Well Said 6   Valuable 6   Must Read 5  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Joe Clifford lives in Rhode Island and has written a regular column for an online newspaper and has contributed many articles to various RI newspapers. His articles deal almost exclusively with American Foreign policy but ventures into other (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Is The US re-creating the Dark Age in history, and if so is it intentional?

If This is Not "Newsworthy, What Is?"

The One Trillion Dollar War with Absolutely Nothing to Show for it.

If Sanders is a True Progressive, He Has One Winnable Option Left

The Only Two Tools in the US Tool Bag: Bombs and Starvation

On the Precipice of Nuclear War