People do tend to forget about internal wars. They don’t stir the emotions as much that’s for sure. You’re point is valid. However the big difference is the yanks fund this genocide in gaza. And they have a cheek to question Putin on arming the rebels.
Putin going after the Baltic states, all NATO members
That’s like one of those April Fool articles
Mickee fairly knew the score here as he and other prominent forumites cough cough charted the rise of ISIS as the major threat to civilisation while the USA bashers were screaming about Israel (who were and still are very wrong in some of their actions).
I genuinely think the west, definitely the yanks than the Brits, have little understanding of the mindset of the Arab world and Middle East. You had liberals in the states getting excited over the Arab spring as if it was similar to states emerging from behind the iron curtain, embracing Big Macs and our fantastic way of life. When what really happened was MB and other fanatics got free rein when not kept in check by secular dictators.
Hopefully there will be a Bush in the White House soon to resolve things.
The Europeans are useless at taking a stand against these terrorists.
You assume the US are unhappy with the way things have played out
1 Like
Rather confused reasoning here. “Liberal USA bashers” would generally have been quite happy to leave the secular dictators in place rather than intervening, stirring the hornet’s nest and letting the fanatics take charge via sham imposed democracy.
It’s the neo-conservatives wot done it.
What intervening?
You assume the USA is one collective interest group with one opinion but why would the hawks be happy with this outcome? Which is what I assume you’re suggesting. Easier do business with a dictator than 20 warlords.