Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

What is the difference in Russia aiding and/or training the opposition in the Ukraine, than the US aiding and/or training the opposition in Syria?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26866points) December 2nd, 2014
18 responses
“Great Question” (5points)

Does it sound a lot like as the pot calling the skillet black? Why does the US feel they are more justified aiding the rebels in Syria against the Islamic State, than Russia in aiding the separatists in Ukraine?

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

zenvelo's avatar

Russia wants to retake Ukraine. The U.S. does not want to take over Syria.

Putin is not accusing Ukraine of trying to kill the opposition before the pro-Russian faction took up arms. Assad has waged war assn. his own people.

And the US has been very circumspect about who they have given support to; they’re trying to isolate Assad but not arm terrorists.

Also, the US isn’t dealing with “rebels” against the Islamic State. The Islamic State is against the Assad regime; the “rebels” are caught in the middle.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Russia wants to retake Ukraine. The U.S. does not want to take over Syria.
So that is the spin, it is not which group opposes the sitting government; it is the motive why they are doing it. Which party came up with that, the party of Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dumb? Putin may want to reclaim the Ukraine but he did not invade it with the Russian Army as the US did in Iraq I & II. He may be aiding the separatist that shares an end he desires, so the situation is still pretty much the same. If we are going to motive, if the US is not going to take over Syria or direct things there, leave them to their own devices. There is no god reason to meddle over there, certainly no better than the Russians.

zenvelo's avatar

Putin HAS invaded Ukraine with troops, then he backed off to appear as peace loving.

By Iraq I, I guess you are referring to the ‘91 Gulf War? The US did not invade Iraq then, the US stopped at the border after liberating Kuwait.

And the Iraq war did not invade Syria.

Isolationism may be attractive, but it does not work in the face of horrendous human rights violations as are occurring in Syria under Assad and in the region under the banner of ISIS. The US did not intervene with ISIS until they tried to commit genocide against the Kurds.

rojo's avatar

Or, for that matter, Nicaragua, or El Salvador, or Cuba, or Panama, or Haiti, or…....How many more do I have to list to finally get your attention and point out that the US is just as, if not more so, guilty of interfering and fomenting unrest in other countries.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Aaaaah.

The relativeist mentality.

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

If you think this way you are on the side of those who are wrong.

ragingloli's avatar

Yes, terrorists are always terrorists, no matter what side they are on. That is why the legitimate sovereign of the colonies is still, and always will be, the British Crown.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Apples and oranges. Russia needs Ukraine because that is where its navy parks its rusting ships. We meddle in the Middle East because the vast majority of the worlds easily recoverable oil is situated there. Syria is just the latest chapter in “the never ending story” authored by that monument to dummydom, the legendary GW. The fool toppled the tyrants oblivious to the fact that only monsters are capable of holding down the lids on the boiling pots in the Middle East. In Syria, the monsters battling it out are currently ISIS vs the Assad/Iran alliance. The United States having squandered its warmaking credibility with its voting public, is now in the uncomfortable position of having to choose the lesser of the 2 evils and throw in with Iran/Assad, to the certain irritation of Israel and every living Sunni

rojo's avatar

@SecondHandStoke Pretty broad stroke of whitewash there considering the narrow minded point of view.

Jaxk's avatar

The difference is, we’re the good guys. Putin is the bad guy. Sheeesh.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

That way of thinking isn’t very now or hip @Jaxk

Enjoy your lack of upvotes and accusations of closed mindedness and backwardsness.

Jaxk's avatar

“That way of thinking isn’t very now or hip”
It is too !!!

ragingloli's avatar

Or.
The difference is, Putin is the good guy, and the colonies are the bad guys.

flutherother's avatar

The difference is there are lots of Russians in Ukraine and no Americans in Syria.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@stanleybmanly The United States having squandered its warmaking credibility with its voting public, is now in the uncomfortable position of having to choose the lesser of the 2 evils and throw in with Iran/Assad, to the certain irritation of Israel and every living Sunni
I guess that all changes again when Iran acting as Uncle Sam’s Luca Brasi against ISIS and other Islamic purist use the opportunity to join the ”Nuke Club” causing Israel to hit them with an attack. Then I guess the US will not see the value in Iran anymore and change dancers once again.

@rojo Or, for that matter, Nicaragua, or El Salvador, or Cuba, or Panama, or Haiti, or…....How many more do I have to list to finally get your attention and point out that the US is just as, if not more so, guilty of interfering and fomenting unrest in other countries.
Jeez, but Uncle Sam is the biggest and badest on the block, with the largest army, a colossal navy, drones, nukes, and bases in just about every man and his brother’s backyard. With might like that, you haffta be right! Because of Uncle Sam, the oils still flows rather cheap to US pumps, and the drugs still flow freely from Central America to an ever unhappy populace that needs to self-medicate to get through the day and the DEA that is trying to bust them to justify their jobs. ~~

@zenvelo Isolationism may be attractive, but it does not work in the face of horrendous human rights violations as are occurring in Syria under Assad and in the region under the banner of ISIS. The US did not intervene with ISIS until they tried to commit genocide against the Kurds.
Oh, now I get it, how dumb of me. To get the US to intervene in genocide I guess you have to have Kurds or Bosnians. Guess those Tutsis in Rwanda and those hapless souls in Darfur must have missed that memo, or they would have got them some Kurds, or Bosnians to get the US to meddle in their affairs to stop the genocide which happened, and maybe still happening, there.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

The difference is who is controlling the narrative.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

^Narrative does not dictate the difference between tyranny and liberty.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

^Please show me where in this whole mess anyone is fighting for liberty.

Bill1939's avatar

The long history of empire building is likely the product of genetic imperatives. The desire for wealth and the power it provides motivates individuals to impel their governments to engage in activities that influence or control other governments. No country has transcended this impetus, nor is it likely that any will, at least in the near future.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`