*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, September 20th, 2016 4:57pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

Relevant! Prescient!

Muslims are already killing Americas on our soil while the Japanese interned were not killing Americans on our soil.

Why do we need 15 gov agencies ?

France keeps letting these not compatible citizens into its own country at its own peril.

Just say no to Muslims!

How many refugees has Russia and China taken in?

Sociopath or troll?

About 600,000 split fairly evenly between them in mid 2015.

(See also http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2011/01/05/glance-who-takes-most-asylum-claims for a slightly older article about refugee settlement)

Man of reality.

You must be the man from delusionville

You do realise it was Russia and China who were against causing the clusterfuck in Syria in the first place? At least in Iraq we bothered to come up with an excuse to go to war, even if there turned out to be no WMD. In Syria we didn't even bother to do that, we just said Assad is a bad person and sent in mercenaries and lots of guns and called them rebels and freedom fighters and watched the whole place blow up. Assad is such a bad person? Compared to the Saudi's? The Russians are the only ones who have stopped the place become an ISIS state by now.

It's like Bob goes totally bat shit during election years.

Right, the Russians who prop up a dictator whose almost immediate response to the Arab uprising was to fire on the protesters and who terrifies his people into submission with barrel bombs and chemical weapons - they're the good guys.

See here's the funny thing. You or whatever you're reading is stuck in the Cold War mindset of the US intervening to prop up murderous dictators against the perceived threat of communism. However now that it's Russia intervening on behalf of its favored dictators you're too stuck in your narrative to see the irony of your position.

Russia is only intervening against ISIS to the extent it props up Assad. The US still of course supports dictators when it is in its economic interests (see Saudi Arabia and implicitly supporting its war in Yemen) but the fact that it's largely avoided arming the government or rebel groups in Syria, neither of which have their hands clean should indicate a lesson learned from arming the mujaheddin against the Soviets in Afghanistan, not a mistake.

The western world had no right to go intervening in Syria's internal affairs in the first place. Guns and mercenaries were flooding in what was Assad supposed to do about it? What about those chemical weapons, notice we don't use that as a reason for our meddling anymore? It's because we now know that it was actually rebels on our side who used them and they were supplied by a Saudi prince. We constantly try to imply is was Assad but in fact we knew it was our side almost from day one. Whats the real reason for all this mess? Well it's oil of course. Qatar wanted to build oil pipelines in Syria and Assad wanted to do a deal with the Iranians and Russians instead, so we decided to give him and his people the international equivalent of a punishment beating. The cold war is over? Pull the other one.

The notion that guns and mercenaries from the west are flooding in is simply untrue. You have the curious responsibility of explaining how the US has been incapable of removing Assad if it has provided such overwhelming support as you claim. What is true, is that Assad overreacted to the Arab Spring protests, unlike say Jordan decided to fire on protests almost immediately and brought a civil war on his hands.

Meanwhile, we also know the origin of the trajectory of the Sarin rockets fired were from areas of government control. We know Assad had a chemical weapons program. We know the volume of the attacks was almost certainly unattainable by anyone other than a state actor. We know that most of the victims were either civilians or the opposition. It's also a curious that these attacks only seemed to occur in Syria.

Again your idea that oil is still a motivation for US involvement in the Middle East is an outdated concept. The US surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest global producer in the world thank to shale oil. The price of oil has crashed as a result and will likely remain low for a prolonged time as a result. The only beneficiary who stands to gains from revisiting the conflict between the US and Russia is Putin because it boosts his domestic popularity to be locked in a struggle with the US.

Many governments in the Middle East regularly throw out the excuse that anything that goes wrong (and is usually their fault) is a result of a US conspiracy. Egypt has regularly done it, Turkey has just recently blamed the attempted coup on the US even though the incentives for the US are clearly for a stable government there to provide a base from which to attack ISIS in Iraq. You should not be so gullible as to believe this is always the case just because the US has intervened covertly in the past.

I found this poignant: http://imgur.com/mEnSeGE

Speaking only to Assad's motivation or provocation, Assad like his father needs none save preservation of his power.

I had a friend formerly of the Syrian special forces in the 80's who informed me that no SF units were allow within 250 miles of the capital at that time owing to the wiping out of the population of a small city with nerve gas. Assad is well and western educated but of the same cloth as his father.

It is easily referenced on the Net.

Mr. Putin, is that you!?

I guess I should have specified Syrian refugees. I looked it up.

Russia 5000 and China None.

Yeah, the Syrian refugees are mostly either displaced within Syria, or in the surrounding countries (6.6m internally displaced in Syria, 2.7m registered in Turkey, 1m registered in Lebanon, 650,000 registered in Jordan). Then there are 600,000 in Germany and another million or so not registered (and many of those are in Greece).