Does the European Union have a foreign policy?

uhm, the US is bombing ISIS while supporting the rebel held syrian territories, Russia has just started bombing the rebel areas to support Assad. I believe most EU nations involved in bombing keep to ISIS territories in Iraq to try and remain neutral in the Assad vs the rebels vs ISIS issue.

What's the point of a soceity where anybody can disagree on anything at anypoint, and possibly hinder others in the soceity. I mean, I'm sure freedom does more good than (you wrote then here?) bad otherwise we would have been enslaved long ago. Surely there must be an open, and unyielding policy which at some-point we are required to abide by?

If you do things right people will not be sure you did anything at all.

 

I heard that the EU's foreign policy is Murica?

I.E. due to their "situations" they are taking a less active roll in foreign conflicts and just kinda letting the US do it's thang.

Also, $ is kind of the ruling body of all governments/unions. Some good quotes by bankers about that one.

 

Not really ...

 

Since when? I know Obama gave the go-ahead to bomb Assad's forces but...

In any event, ISIS received lots of material support from the US up to this point.

Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't surprise me if the US finally started fighting ISIS, as far as I can tell the entire point of supporting them was to create (another) enemy in the region in order to further and expand sustained military operations (and domestic programs).


Anyway, TL;DR: Proxy Wars are bad, and they should feel bad.

 

I never said they where bombing assad's forces? I said ISIS while they support the rebels. bombing one side while supporting regime change does not mean bombing everyone. sheesh.

 

But Obama did give the go-ahead to bomb Assad's forces along with ISIS (and possibly Russian forces if they attack the Rebels at all, so yes, in this specific case, it does mean everyone). That's something that I know happened. I did not hear about them actually bombing ISIS or Assad yet, but I haven't kept up on it, and reporting on what's going on there has been "foggy" at best.

 

Multiple unicorns have been killed in the bombings.

 

I'd appreciate it if you gave actual answers on the subject instead of bullshit.

 

how would you know i was bullshitting or not?

 

I doubt that. If they attacked Assad Russia would be very mad; If they killed Russian servicemen Syria would be a no-flight zone with S-300 looking in every direction before you could say "that was an idiotic geopolitical decision".

 

anyone else hear Ben's speach at the UN yesterday? I don't think he's bluffing.

 

thanks for backing me up buddy.

 

Ideally because you'd have citation that I could follow up on. You know, something like this:

https://www.rt.com/news/311429-obama-airstrikes-syria-rebels/ (Of course, keeping in mind that RT is obviously biased on this subject.)

But if you want to be an immature jackass that's your prerogative.

Right, because the US government has never done anything that would be considered a provocation to Russia.

I agree that it'd be an idiotic decision but don't put it past them just because of that.

 

there ya go now you're trying to keep up with it. now find more!

 

I've nothing against doing research, but you know it would have been better if you were willing to actually help and share proper information instead of being a condescending...

But again, it's your prerogative, so whatever.

Just keep in mind, asking others for information is pretty much what most research entails (short of scientific testing I suppose).

On a related note, I saw this in Lebanese news: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Le...arsals-fsa-into-isis-ranks.ashx#ixzz3CpSZVuEG

 

That's the spirrit!

 

Killing Russian citizens? That's far beyond the mark.

 

Indeed, but Obama gave authorization for airstrikes and other military support of the Rebels, to attack anyone fighting against them. That could result in conflict with Russia.

The US government and media have been trying to pain Russia as an enemy for a while. The business with Ukraine is similar to what's been going on in Syria, though with less direct US involvement and more direct Russian involvement there. Likewise, there was that business with Russia's "invasion" of Georgia, where US media initially ignored the fact that Georgian forces had attacked first, etc.

For the most part, I think it's to foster a "Cold War" agenda (that's just speculation of course), same as supporting ISIS, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they became more reckless.

 

I agree, I just think that killing Russians would be really insanely bad politics. Imagine a Russian airstrike on US troops in Afghanistan, not as friendly fire, but deliberately!

 

so just out of curiosity, and if this gets to be too much of its own topic i'll split it off-

if russia were to fully annex ukraine and, for fun, let's say the baltics as well, is there a reason for the usa to care that isn't paranoia/fearmonger panic?


i have a very dim view of the worth of the land they'd be grabbing (not as though russia needs more land in general), and militarily i don't think of them as being able to match the rest of the world if their expansionist tendencies went towards places i gave a Bane Shift about (sorry soviet satellites, i never loved you)