Oops. so sorry. you werent replying to a post of mine.

You're running far, far off on a tangent here. Please try to stay on topic.

According to the link, while the CIA was doing a bit earlier the major action in training rebels began as a means of containing ISIS

I'll speak louder since you didn't get me the first time. THEY SPEAK THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.

They are a distinct people.

Last things first because it's easy

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Some samples:

"On taxes, "the Clinton plan is pretty much Obama extended," Williams said. "On the whole, she proposes a fairly small increase in taxes that would be borne almost entirely by the wealthy." Her plan would increase revenues collected by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center’s modeling."

"Moody’s concluded that Trump’s proposals would make the U.S. economy less global and would substantially increase the federal debt, benefit the wealthy disproportionately, and push unemployment up. "

As for exacerbating current racial tensions it's how he talks about about racial groups and uses xenophobia as a tool.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

His lovely tweet "#JebBush has to like Mexican Illegals because of his wife"

His insistence that we have to fear all Muslims immigrants

It's certainly a less clear cut point then his budget plan as it can't be easily quantified like money can but it's there.

Man, I know BLM can get out of hand some times but to hear you talk about them it sounds like they're part of some super conspiracy / civilization ending. Furthermore, Clinton has never supported any of their getting out of hand but has most certainly supported their core message of trying to bring attention to the problems in our black communities.

So all of those things were organised by Hillary?

Wait, no they weren't. You're changing the subject from candidates to the actions of angry activists.

Oh, thanks. Should i just repost my post again?

Let me see if I'm getting your narrative straight here.

So the US, after invading Iraq, went around and trained the very people resisting what the US was doing?

I believe our aid into Syria was completed restricted to non military aid before ISIS came into the picture so the whole US using Syria as part of a proxy war against Russia doesnt really hold up. We only started bombing and sending in special forces teams when ISIS became a major issue.

Your reasoning is ridiculous. They speak their own language which makes them culturally distinct from Russia right there. Just because they share some distant bloodline with Russians isn't reason enough for Russian to just move in and annex them. If that's how the world worked most of the worlds boarders would have to be redrawn.

It certainly wouldnt surprise me if the US was nudging things along a little in the Ukraine just before the Russian invasion. The CIA are not mind controllers though. If there wasn't wind-spread distaste for the prior governments aligning with Russia to tap into then there wouldn't have been anything to nudge. Just look at the "civil war" happening there. I would imagine if there was wide spread dissatisfaction with their new government's attempts to align itself to the West there would be a heck of a lot more people revolting then a few ethnic Russians who only hold out against the rest of the country because of heavy Russian support.

In regards to "missiles on their boarder", there are no nuclear missiles in former Soviet states so I don't see the Cuban missile crisis as a particularly apt comparison.

On to Syria

The report you post to seems to be just discussing the dangers of ISIS and assessing the situation in Syria and Iraq. It also talks a bit about what other countries are doing and who they're backing in Syria but not the US so I'm a bit puzzled as to the relevancy it has to our conversation. All the video is doing is taking the report and then some how making it about the US which from what I'm reading it is not. The fact is ISIS spawned from Al Qaeda in Iraq which given our past history is not a faction the US would likely knowingly support. Some of the Arab states might have a bit (in fact it wouldnt surprise me) but the idea that the US was actively aiding ISIS in a significant fashion is ridiculous given where they came from.

I'm not sure what to make of your first paragraph as it doesn't change the fact that Ukraine was a sovereign nation that spent 50 years of recent history under the thumb of Russia against their will.

As for what Russia will or won't tolerate, that's Russia's problem. My point above was that it's Russia that is heavily involved in proxy warfare, not the West or the US specifically.

When you forcibly occupy your neighbors for 50 years most of them are not going to like you anymore and Russia is just going to have to deal with that. Just look at the US in this context, the US / Canada boarder is the worlds largest undefended boarder on both sides because it's inconceivable to either side that any aggression across the boarder would take place. In the South, there are immigration controls and forces tasked with stopping drug shipments on the US side of the US / Mexican boarder but again virtually no military presence for either side. When you generally respect your neighbors they generally respect you back.

For starters, your links don't show that the government turnover didn't have to do with resentment over 50 years of Russian hegemony over Ukraine as opposed to Western influence. One would think that if the Ukrainian masses weren't pro-West then the civil war wouldn't be restricted to the small, ethnically Russian territories, clearly being fueled by Russia and that this small minority wouldn't be able to resist the military might of the overall country without Russian military supplies (like tanks) that Ukraine never owned and thus couldn't have been seized from them.

As for Syria, the US only started seriously supporting militant groups in Syria after the rise of ISIS. It's certainly possible limited aid was going into this country that had been directly antagonistic to the US for at least a half century prior to that but Russia has only gotten involved in that mess recently so I would most definitely not call that a proxy war as the aid was never about Russia

Countries like Ukraine don't come to NATO because of Western influence, they come to NATO because of 50 years of Russian hegemony.

And when has the US tried to put nukes in Ukraine? You're just making things up. No former Soviet states in NATO host US nuclear missiles.