On Friday, US warplanes attacked and destroyed three oil tankers that were traveling through Syrian Kurdish territory. At least four people were killed in the course of the attacks.
Details are still scant, and the US hasn’t made a formal statement on
what happened. The tankers are believed to have entered from Iraq, and
were heading toward Assad territory. Since Syria lost all their
oil-producing regions in the war, they have to import what minimal oil
they can get to keep their economy and military going.
But the US has imposed an oil embargo on Syria, in keeping with
long-standing goals of regime change there. It seems the US ban on Syria
having any oil is the basis for US warplanes attacking oil-containing
vehicles in Syria.
While the US attacking things in Syria generally has little in the way
of immediate consequences, the Kurdish YPG, a US ally, have been
believed to be profiting off these oil shipments as well, and the US
attack may strain relations with them.
Funny how so many people get upset about environmental issues–yet the USA can blow up 3 oil cargo ships on a river and not a peep out of the media.
Be interesting to see if any photos of the environmental damage get published–I doubt it.
I suspect it was truck tankers that were attacked.
No, they were Syrian government ferries. The US also employs SDF to hit them. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-ship-carrying-oil-struck-by-missile-in-eastern-syria-video/
That I believe, I trust Syrian local news.
I’m certain the U.S. pays the SDF to be total dicks.
How can it be ‘smuggling’ to deliver oil from one part of Syria to the other.
I stand corrected.
I don’t follow. Environmentalists don’t support shooting wars. If they did, the targets would be the extractive industries aligned with the belligerent countries.
Only sickos sink oil tankers with bombs. So proud to be an American.
Since when do “environmentalists” speak against war? Since when do “environmentalists” care remotely about the environment? All they seem to want is a carbon tax on Europe and the US, as well as anyone else who can pay up. The environment is the last thing anyone seems to care about. “Environmentalists” want money or other ideological goals, with the environment as a mere justification.
The carbon tax is advocated by oil companies posing as environmentalists, not real environmentalists.
Nice to know that a unilateral embargo gives us the moral cover to murder civilians.
Unfortunately, they’re not looking for “moral cover.” They don’t care what anyone else thinks. Surely you’ve noticed that by now.
The US has been able – so far – to wage economic war on whatever countries in the world displease it – in the form of life snuffing sanctions sometimes enforced, as in this case, by military action.
But these sanctions can only work so long as the nations of the world tolerate them. So far those nations have not had the courage to band together and say “no” to US sanctions directed at some of them.
This form of economic coercion – really, acts of war – has become the hallmark of the Trump administration. And it is quite amazing that the “progressives” in the West have had little to say in opposition to it.
Great comment. But for some reason you tainted it with your obligatory bashing of the progressives. But at least you made a comment without using the acronym TDS.
I do not think the truth should be regarded as a taint. There was a species known as Cold War Liberal back in the 20th Century. Then there was a Left, genuinely pro-peace and antiwar. Today everyone is a “progressive” and the great majority are suckers for humanitarian imperialism, R2P, Russia bashing, China bashing etc. Ideologically they are hawks – although they conceive of themselves as doves, a lack of self-awareness which is staggering. The problem is that they are not even aware of how hawkish they are, and their smug self-satisfaction with their warlike position makes it difficult to change them.
They tend to be partisan Dems and fell silent as Obama
increased the number of wars from Bush’s 2 to 7. In the Trump era their TDS allowed them to be sucked into Russiagate and a whole new era of Russophobia. This has greatly weakened the cause of peace and it deserves to be pointed out.
It was a taint because it didn’t belong with the rest of your comment, not because of whether it was true or not.
Obama did not start any wars, he badly intervened in ongoing civil wars. The same ones trump has greatly escalated.
Libya? Coup in Ukraine wasn’t a start of a civil war?
Well, whether the CIA initiated the civil wars in Syria and Libya is a matter of debate. Google “Timber Sycamore,” for example.
But you must know – or I think you must, but maybe not – that the present antiwar movement in the US calls itself anti-interventionist.
And so you admit that Obama was an interventionist – so I hope you do not say that approvingly. (When you say Obama “badly” intervened, do you mean by “badly” it was “evil” or “incompetent.” If the latter only, then you SEEM to be an interventionist pleading for competent interventionism. You might clear that up, because if the Empire shoots itself in the foot, that might be seen by some to be a great step forward.)
And when you say that Trump “greatly” escalated the interventions, that needs numbers and definitions. In any event the fact stands that Bush 2 and Obama both initiated interventions and Trump for all his faults and they are many and GRAVE, has not equaled Bush 2.0 or Obomber in starting new interventions because he has not started any. Pretty simple, Dave. You are striking out at the one point where Trump has done something right (aside from FIRST STEP and lowering Black and Hispanic unemployment along with that of the white working class and pushing wages up – but that might not be of concern to you.)
I understand why you cannot see this failure of Trump to live up to the Bush/Obama accomplishments in intervention , but I will not provide the initials for the condition. Hint: it begins with T and ends with S. Poor guy.
John V. Walsh
I didn’t “admit” Obama intervened all over the ME, it is a simple fact. I saw thru Obama when he put Biden in as VP. Obama intervened in the many civil wars during the arab spring. Unrest caused primarily from the millions of refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. That unrest is a direct result of Cheney’s wars. No doubt, if Obama had not intervened, he would have been roasted for not doing so by the right, it’s just their way. Are there any countries left for trump to make war ? Iran ? Korea ? Tough nuts to crack, Cheney gave Iran a try in 05 and couldn’t get it to fly. Now, trump’s escalations are well known, if you read any antiwar articles. In 2016 Obama had 300 spec ops in Syria, training and directing air strikes I guess. In March of 2017, trump deployed 3000 marines, including the war crime artillery units which leveled Syrian cities. He upped air, missile strikes also. By April 2017 trump added 7000 combat troops to Afghanistan and ordered a 4 fold increase in airstrikes. Love how you equate wars as numbers…as in Obama 7, Bush 2, trump 0, you post that a lot. Like, ww1 is 1 war, and Grenada is 1 war…really reaching. Perhaps try again with civilian casualty numbers, refugees created, dollars, blowback. What is pitiful, is trumpster criticism of Obama as a defense of trump. Perhaps, if one of you guys actually criticizes, or hold trump accountable for something, I will school you on how to criticize Obama foreign policy.
“…And it is quite amazing that the “progressives” in the West have had little to say in opposition to it…”
in fact, I can hardly recall any so-called progressives among the US political or media Elites who have opposed this type of economic war against any US allies or competitors.. Especially when it’s used against ‘official US enemies’…….Can we get any quotes from mainstream political Elites?
I certainly read enough criticism in the Left wing alternative press. the so-called progressives or even liberals have been too obsessed with their Mueller witchhunt to pay much attention to anything else, mind you
USA is the most evil & barbaric nation ever to exist on Planet Earth.
How is the US a nation today? What binds us? The US has become globalism applied.
How about leaving the Syrian people alone?
Just not in our dna.
Globalists insist on dominating everyone.
Indeed . They are a disease.
Russia is bombing the shiite out of Idlib, what say you?
Idlib is where al Qaeda resides.
Oh, no non-combatants live there, right, I didn’t know.
Aren’t the targets being bombed the the same people who have been inflicting so much misery on the Syrian people?
Probably,
but if it were the US doing this
you would be screaming righteous indignation.
Now, because it’s Russia, not a word.
Nope. If the US was bombing terrorists instead of arming, aiding and protecting them I wouldn’t be saying much. Other than I don’t think that the USA should be tinkering in the Middle East at all of course. Pretty obvious it is a failed foreign policy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/30/syria-russia-bomb-hospitals-idlib-given-coordinates-hope-preventing/
So, … you think Russia’s RoE are the same as the US?
If US antiwar people cant even get the US out of an illegal intervention, to what end do we address what Russia does legally ? I find it interesting to note the MSM has the IDlib event “covered” yet, the American people dont know if the US artillery is still in Syria, or not.
What “illegal” intervention?
And re. Russia, you would think a site like this would be castigating them,
but not.
The American MSM is nothing but a Leftist front propaganda machine, if you seek truth, you will find it elsewhere.
Funny, you throw out Rules of Engagement 2 posts ago, now “illegal war” is confusing. Essential trump apologist, law is only law if it helps you for 5 minutes . McConnell ethics.
RoE are important and no country on the planet has tighter rules than the US, it’s just an inconvenient fact, for you.
While Russia actually USES deconfliction data designed to protect hospitals for their TARGETING!
And the pious antiwar crowd ignores THAT (???)
while attempting cover with a Trump lame “apologist” slur.
This isn’t about Rules of Engagement. It’s about uselessness interventions and US taxes ending up in the hands of terrorists. Pretty obvious at this point that the US taxpayer has less than zero upside on these involvements.
You seem really keen to continue this debacle. You should be willing to go yourself. Pay for it yourself and leave the US military out of it.
How was crushing the ISIS abomination caliphate with limited US troop involvement utilizing the Kurds working for you?
Let me know if that happens.
The caliphate is gone, you are on notice.
The caliphate may be gone in your imagination. In the real world the caliph is still alive and his army is still fighting.
Unsurprising. More than 150 years after Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the US hasn’t even eliminated the Confederacy yet. To expect it to eliminate the caliphate in a handful of years would be silly. Almost as silly as pretending that it has done so.
No one ever claimed AQ was gone, or that ISIS is gone, but in fact their caliphate base of operations is gone,
along with the monthly beheading videos they loved to release.
And it was done on the cheap.
You mean the ISIS that came about as a result of the US invasion of Iraq? Simple. No US intervention, no Isis.
Well, we have a point of agreement.
The US certainly DID create them!
And I join you in condemning McCain, 0bama and Hillary for doing so.
However, ONCE they turned rogue,
what would you have us do?
Destroying our Frankenstein, was necessary, don’t pretend JUST because we created it we had no accountability for getting rid of it.
And getting rid (of the caliphate) was done surgically, with minimal costs to life and treasure.
Jihadists of one type of another have not been stamped out. They feed on the US involvement. Sadam Hussain, Omar Gaddaffi and Bashar al Assad though tyrants kept the lid on. The Syrians would not have had a problem taking out Isis without US involvement.
US involvement has only made the ME worse. The refugees caused by US regeme change schemes are destablizing Europe. The greatest foreign policy debacle in US history.
Btw, Isis is now active in some 11 countries. Surgical? Another failure.
ISIS no longer has a base of operation, they are scattered like AQ.
You never can exterminate all of the rats, but you can deny them power and make recruiting tougher for them.
I disagreed with Bush going into Iraq, it was dumb and the nation-building aspects even dumber. 0bama/Hillary in Libya another colossal blunder.
Nobody could/would dismantle ISIS until Trump took them down. the Russians and Syrians couldn’t stop their phenomenal growth.
It wasn’t until Trump changed 0bama’s ridiculous RoE, enlisted the Kurds and introduced Marine artillery that they began to decline.
Yes Isis is “active”, like AQ is “active” but not threatening us or our allies and essentially on the run from drones and assistance given to those respective countries. The ISIS —CALIPHATE—-was surgically removed.
No confliction with Syria, the Turks, Russians or Iranians, nice work.
This is an American website though. The whole point is to argue for the US to stop meddling/warring. Maybe antiwar could expand to insist everyone stop meddling/warring, but that’d be a different mission.
Maybe antiAmericanwars” would be more accurate.
To h3ll with everybody else on the planet.
US wars are certainly against the interests of US citizens. Spend money on the US, not the Middle East.
How many people do you need to kill before you’re satiated?
I agree that the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq and the strategy in Afghanistan were the products of the MIC.
I renounce US involvement in those wars and all of the 0bama admin efforts in the ME.
Clinton, who I despise for other reasons, did the best job of keeping us out of foreign wars.
However, Trump against ISIS was a tactical success.
Minimal casualties, minimal costs and using the locals (Kurds) instead of our troops was a brilliant example and counterpoint to other US stupidities.
Why did Trump need to use the Kurds? It looked like Russia and Syria did most of the attacking. Trying to give the Kurds their own state has just brought the Turks in, likely part of why the Turks are ignoring the US on Turkey’s new S-400. Why encourage a civil war there? Why not exit and allow Assad to regain control? Then, likely, Turkey also would stay out of Iraq and Syria, leaving the Kurds alone.
Furthermore, Congress never authorized military force in Syria. Also, Syria never welcomed the US in. Why not exit? If Israel is the concern, then simply guarantee Israel’s safety. Build a giant base in the Golan Heights, and exit the rest of the Middle East.
Clinton’s attack on Serbia was a disaster. Muslims in Kosovo are still attempting to ethnically cleanse the Christian Serbs, whenever possible. And the polity is not law-abiding.
The Turks were the ISIS caliphates principle supporters.
Nobody was/is trying to give the Kurds their own state.
ISIS had attacked the US and it’s allies
(not to mention the fact they were the most disgusting reprehensible malignant for of terror in the world) and therefore destroying them was OUR responsibility. After ISIS’s treatment of the Kurds, we had a willing ground for to root them out. Nice work I’d say!
PS: the horror of Serbia is over, that is my point,
should we have stayed out, yes,
but that horror would likely have continued had we not.
Just to add, as soon as peacekeepers leave Kosovo, the genocides will start up again immediately. But no one cares about Christians. The genocide there is against Christian Serbs. No one cares about Christians in either Syria nor Kosovo.
When Kurds attack Syrian Christians, taking their lands, no one cares.
And I acknowledge the Kurds are wonderful against ISIS and other radical Sunni. But they’re not so wonderful against other minorities.
Re. Kosovo, I don’t know,
I just know that the carnage that was going on isn’t now.
Milosevic, was no hero.
Are Christians suffering “genocide” in Serbia? I have not heard that.
And in Syria I have not heard that Kurds are particularly focused on Christians either.
But if either is happening of course I would oppose both.
I support Christian persecution relief, everywhere.
Christians would be suffering genocide in Kosovo without NATO troops. Serbs living in Kosovo.
Clinton sided against Christians, in favour of Muslims, in Kosovo. Accusations of atrocities tended to blame Christians exclusively for any killings. Such was not the case.
US foreign policy varies, but it’s pretty much always against Christians.
So you believe it would have been best for the US to have just ignored Kosovo?
You may well be correct.
But if NATO is keeping the peace, now, do you think they would still be at war had the US/NATO just ignored them?
They might still be at war. But I dislike siding against Christians. I didn’t know much about the conflict, just that US reporting was one-sided. And I know criminality, human trafficking, organ blackmarket sales, drugs, etc. are centred in Kosovo and Albania. With regard to Europe.
The US sided with such people.
Regarding the Kurds stealing land from Christians (Assyrians). Consider, these people have been Christian since before anyone in Europe. They’ve enduring everything, but they couldn’t endure ‘Murica. No Christian survives ‘Murica.:
https://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/13/kurds-attack-assyrian-christian-village-in-northern-syria/
Sorry for so many replies. I just wanted to mention that Disqus censored one of my posts just now. Suffice it say: The reporting on Serbia was unfairly biased, and it’s de facto illegal for me to explain why.
‘Murica is too free to have a discussion on foreign affairs. The wars must continue.
No problem Luchorpan, I confess i don’t know much about it. Only that it “sounded” like a genocide and the US looked like it was trying to stop it, without ground troops or loses. That’s the only reason I originally mentioned it. See you around.
One irony about the reporting on Serbia in the US: Serbs were associated with Nazis by the US. However, the Serbs were major victims of German mass murder. The Serbs were not pro-German. It is no different from accusing Sanders of being a Nazi solely for his Jewish ancestry. Serbs were major victims, not supporters, of Germany. That they supported a side in a Syrian conflict is no different from Sanders taking a side in a different conflict.
But ethnic Serbs own no major US media orgs, so their side wasn’t given.
Kosovo is very important to Serbs, for the heritage value. It used to be Christian, changed demographically. Muslim Albanians are only too happy to genocide the former heritage sites.
I support civilization, Christians and Jews, I oppose islam in most, if not in all of it’s iterations.
But most of all I oppose genocide, ethinc cleansing and authoritarians. Sometimes those ideals collide and then I do my best to make sense of it.
You probably know vastly more than I re. Kosovo.
What if anything can we, the US,
do about the situation in Kosovo, other than just stay out?
So much for Trump the Peacemaker. He is as bad as Nixon.
This is disgusting. Will the DC Ghouls ever learn? All this for our “greatest ally”. Prez. Trump, Israel first, USA second, just like it has been since JFK was killed. At the end it will be the tax paying USA citizen that will pay the price for the evils of DC. Remember the USS Liberty!!
The US and its puppets are terrorists.
Is this when we are supposed to say “thank you for your service” ?
Screw these guys for their service. Hope they get shot down next time.
the US will attack oil tankers that are destined for the people of Syria and its legitimate government……… but never interfered with ISIS shipping oil to Turkey in tens of thousands of trucks over a period of more than 5-7 years.
Exactly … Putin took care of them.
Overnight.
Assad was/is not our enemy. He does not force women into burkas, persecute Christians, Jews, or minor-sect Muslims – Syria’s government has all types in it – and most importantly, does not bribe our politicians to keep our borders wide open…
Thus is precisely why it had to go. All secular countries in the Middle East were targets. There should not be bad examples of toerant Moslem countries, reflects bad on Israel. The priblem is — Iraq survived without breaking up into three — Kurdish, Sunni and Shia regions. Syria survived and will survive regardless of US-Israeli joint efforts to undermine it. All it does — sends a loud and clear message to the rest of Arab world not to trust US. Egypt survived and remained secular. In Turkey, Islam is natiinalustic and populist. UAE is in Syria working with Assad to revive once strong movie industry. Two movies in production are focusing on historic Sufi Moslem leaders, to highlight Syria’s oeaceful Sunni Islam. But incidentally, Sufis are resoected in Uran, and iriginating in Turkey, the pisitive message is being sent from Balkans to China. Does anyone think that UAE would do this to strart a rift with Saudi Wahhabis? If course not. MbS has made it public that Saudi Arabia must return to its role of Sunni Islam guardian, a tolerant and welcoming host. MbS is working on economy, tourism, infrastructure. And curbing extreme Wahhabism. That he already did by lifting ban in women driving, movie theaters, sporting events.
Put it together, and add the scarcity if MBS in meetings of GCC, Arab League and Irganization of Islamic States. While King ooened GCC and delivered a speech mirroring Bolton line, there was nothing new in it. No threats to Iran. Arab League, disunited as always. OIS never even mentioned Iran — not once! MBS was not starring there, and thus is a sugn that Iran mess is a nin starter unless YS and Israel go alone. If that happens, military defence of Iran by Russia and China, possibly Turkey and Pakistan — could nit be ruled out. For as long as Arab support is not there.
Interesting times.
My conclusion is Syria and Israel see one another as enemies, because Israel wants Syria’s territory. Alternatively, Israel wants to ethnically cleanse remaining Palestinians, and it fears Syria will intervene.
Israel seems to be everything, but I could be mistaken.
Why aren’t the libs screaming about the environment?
Jun 3, 2019 By Backing Al-Qaeda, Trump Continues Obama’s Horrible Syria Policy
Over the weekend, President Trump tweeted a condemnation of Syria and Russia’s assault on the Idlib province. Yet even the US government special envoy for Syria admitted on video that Idlib is home to the largest concentration of al-Qaeda fighters. Are Trump’s advisors feeding him false information? Why continue the disastrous policy of backing al-Qaeda and other extremists in hope of overthrowing Assad? Why doesn’t US policy change even after it is shown to be a huge failure?
https://youtu.be/F4i2MR9CcqI
Obama’s Syria policy ? No. Bush put Syria on the “axis of evil” list early on. Obama attempted rapproachment, until the arab spring and civil war. The erroneously chose a side. Trump escalated US violence 50 fold.
Correction, the War Parties plans are right here and just sit back and listen.
Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years
“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
Yes, he is referring to the memo from 9/20/01….The Bush administration and the MSM spent the next 6 years claiming they couldn’t find wmd because it all got moved to Syria…yup
There was no civil war. That and the Arab Spring are CIA achievements.
Sure, the arab people would never have a thought of protesting their living conditions on their own….you think everyone is as subservient and apathetic as Americans?
Will America ever recover from the 1963 coup? It’s been downhill ever since.
War criminals on parade. All of these pilots and those who gave the orders should be arrested and tried accordingly.
The Russians are bombing the snot out of Idlib,
antiwar crusaders, silent.
Is bombing al Qaeda and ISIS bad? Didn’t al Qaeda attack the US?
Do the Russians discriminate between enemy fighters and civilians?
Is there a difference between US and Russian policy in that regard? If the US is concerned about civilians, then it would make sense to exit out of Afghanistan. Assange and Manning certainly revealed war crimes there.
How would I be expected to believe when the Russians truly are acting immorally after so much propaganda in the US?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/30/syria-russia-bomb-hospitals-idlib-given-coordinates-hope-preventing/
I think there is.
No, al Qaeda did not attack the US, if you mean 9/11. That was an inside and Israeli job.
Israel might have aided the attack, and it might well have been an inside job; but al Qaeda was at least the idiot group that carried out the attacks.
US marines unload 100ooo 155mm guided artillery shells into Syria since 2017…….should I go to Moscow and carry a sign ?
And you complained about it the whole time, but now,
that Russia’s doing it, nothing.
I find that interesting.
It bothers you that, as a US citizen, I complained about US troops leveling Syrian cities ?
It bothers me that those who obsess about being “antiwar”
turn a blind eye to “wars” perpetrated by others.
Ok, always bad to bomb civilians….feel better ?
You never complain when Russians do it.
It’s just interesting.
What would be surprising about antiwar Americans paying more attention to, and being more worried about, what the American government is doing than about what foreign governments are doing in foreign places?
“War” is the condition we oppose, fine.
And we rightly focus where we have the most influence,
in this case the US.
However, the atrocities of war are everywhere and those perpetrators need to be called out.
By not doing so, the false impression that the US is the only war mongering state becomes a distortion which removed from all context.
The site would more accurately be called “antiUS”,
because animus toward the US has become the primary rant.
Almost every denunciation is reserved for only the US and Israel.
We almost never hear about the war atrocities of Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Qatar the UK, the EU, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Pakistan or the Sudan.
The truth is “war”, like any other heinous crime, should be held to account. If not, those perpetrators get a free pass, little notice, and are encouraged to continue.
“antiUS”…yes, that is true. When a neighborhood has a termite problem, yes, you can address each infected house forever, but, it is best to find their prime nest. That prime nest of war is the US. We are #1, at least in warmongering. I wont bother with the statistics. “Antiamerican ” ? Ok, wasnt it Goering who stated one easy rule to promote war was to denounce antiwar people as unpatriotic or treasonous ?
Well, finally your bias is in the open and you “won’t bother with the statistics”, how very rich.
“We almost never hear about the war atrocities of a bunch of countries, almost all of which are on the site’s front page on any given day.”
Fixed, no charge.
Selectively.
Why no story re. Idlib being pounded into powder?
Yes, why no story re. that?
My complain is mostly focused on the bloggers
who IGNORE the rest of the war-horrors raging around the world.
Further,
while I generally agree with the reporting on antiwar.om re. WARS,
the bloggers only focus on US wars. Unfortunate and partisan —Leftist.
Actually, most of them are hard rightists.
No Tom, that is ridiculous,
they hate Israel, anything the US does and
ignore everything Iran, NK, Islamo-jihadists, Russia or China do against human rights.
They are almost exclusively brain-washed Leftists
You not knowing the difference between “left-wing” and “right-wing” is a problem, but the important thing to remember is that it’s your problem, not Antiwar.com’s.
I’m not saying there aren’t any leftists here (in fact, I am a radical leftist, as far left as it’s possible to get on the political spectrum — a left-libertarian), but the site was founded by right-libertarians, at least some of whom have given up the libertarian part to get further right.
I appreciate your honesty.
I would describe myself as a libertarian conservative. So we may share “libertarian” influences from time to time.
Antiwar.com of course is free to do absolutely whatever it wants, however, unless the world of “war” is addressed and condemned with consistency against every perpetrator, I think it loses effectiveness. just my humble opinion, nothing more.
Re. the bloggers here,
it’s pretty amazing, almost uniformly Maduro-styled Leftists. I only offer a countervailing view to stimulate synapses from the other side of their brains.
What “bloggers” are you talking about?
The last five blog authors published on Antiwar.com are:
1) Eric Garris, right-libertarian and co-founder of the site.
2) Ron Paul, paleoconservative former Republican congresscritter.
3) Ray McGovern — I suppose he could nominally be classified as a leftist.
4) Jeff Riggenbach. Libertarian. Left-libertarian or right-libertarian? I dunno, but he’s been affiliated with the Mises Institute in the past, so I’d lean toward “right.”
5) Susan Dirgham and Rick Sterling. No idea as to their political affiliations.
I am referring to the posters
in the comments section, sorry for misstating that.
OK, I can buy that. But it’s a different story.
Antiwar.com’s comments section reflects the views of those who
1) read Antiwar.com AND
2) choose to comment on what they read.
That latter is the key. Commenters at any site tend to be the more extreme/obsessed readers. Go to a Beatles fan site and the commenters won’t be just be people who like the White Album — they’ll be people with very strong, and in some cases very strange, opinions concerning the White Album.
Agreed.
Commenters do “tend to be more (passionate) extreme/obsessed readers”,
yes.
And I include myself in that (mostly re. an opposite viewpoint).
I appreciate your tolerance for me and will endeavor to abide by your guidelines consistently.
I enjoy the jousting and thoughtful counterpoints.
Thanks.
Faka News
the morons in usa govt keep pushing and pushing other countries,when the straw breaks their backs d.c. will be sorry.
Russia has barely done anything against ISIS. Also when Syria is shedding refugees into the West, it is our business
SDF beat ISIS, not Russia, not ISIS, facts are facts.