21–30 of 91 posts
America should rescue civilians and force safe corridors to stay open, but otherwise stay the hell out of there, and let them fight it out. And yes, that includes ISIS! If the people who live there can not defeat ISIS American help will not work long term.
This is a pretty good article and worth a read for people who are not already informed. They were not completely correct. They seem to underestimate the stability and staying power of Jordan. Both US and Israel help to make sure that Jordan is protected. Stability of monarchies are typically underestimated. Syria's government has not fallen, and Nusra (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) never managed to unify the rebel to any…
If I've got this right, in Syria, Iran is opposed to ISIS/Daesh and Saudis are funding them? While the Russians are supporting the status-quo Assad/Alawhite faction and the American backed "liberation" factions have mostly died out? (People seem to have stopped talking about AQ in the context of Syria?)
Assad wants ISIS to linger around since the focus would be on it rather than him, and he is focused on fighting the Sunni militias (freedom fighters according to US kind of like 80s afghanistan), Turks do not wants Kurds to be powerful and are interested in marginalizing them in Northern Syria. Kurds want to fight ISIS with help of US and score brownie points for Kurdistan. Sunni militias do not have much problem with ISIS want to fight the Alawite regime and make Syria Sunni Again ;). Iraqi Shia and Iran want to marginalize the Sunnis supporting ISIS. To say the least its a giant clusterfuck and US is willingly in bed with Al Qaeda ( wannabes like Al-Nusra front)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the official (US) narrative, and it's the real absurdity here. You should find out how those "peaceful protests" started, and the activities of the US ambassador to Syria just before the protests broke out. It's from the same playbook that was used successfully in Libya and Ukraine, and almost succeeded a few years ago in Cuba. It's an interesting exercise if you have the time. Venezuela is in the same neighbo…
That's the conspiracy theory narrative, and it's the real real absurdity here. US ambassadors don't have the power to raise hell on the streets of any given country, especially in one where a significant portion of the population have long-standing and legitimate aggrievances against the current government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the official (US) narrative, and it's the real absurdity here. You should find out how those "peaceful protests" started, and the activities of the US ambassador to Syria just before the protests broke out. It's from the same playbook that was used successfully in Libya and Ukraine, and almost succeeded a few years ago in Cuba. It's an interesting exercise if you have the time. Venezuela is in the same neighbo…
That's the conspiracy theory narrative, and it's the real real absurdity here. US ambassadors don't have the power to raise hell on the streets of any given country, especially in one where a significant portion of the population have long-standing and legitimate aggrievances against the current government.
Which serves to infantilize the entire population of every other country in the world. See the GP's belief that apparently a few words by the US Ambassador is more powerful than thousands of years of history and culture, very difficult conflicts between religious sects, clans, and tribes, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the official (US) narrative, and it's the real absurdity here. You should find out how those "peaceful protests" started, and the activities of the US ambassador to Syria just before the protests broke out. It's from the same playbook that was used successfully in Libya and Ukraine, and almost succeeded a few years ago in Cuba. It's an interesting exercise if you have the time. Venezuela is in the same neighbo…
That's the conspiracy theory narrative, and it's the real real absurdity here. US ambassadors don't have the power to raise hell on the streets of any given country, especially in one where a significant portion of the population have long-standing and legitimate aggrievances against the current government.
Consider Nicaragua -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua#Pr...
America should rescue civilians and force safe corridors to stay open, but otherwise stay the hell out of there, and let them fight it out. And yes, that includes ISIS! If the people who live there can not defeat ISIS American help will not work long term.
this advice should have been used and adhered to for last 50 years, and the world would be truly much better place. what a dream...
It's harder to criticize that. It's bad for the locals, but America needs to do what's good for America.
In this case though, it's entirely "for" the locals, so America should stay out of it because it's not actually helping the locals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to predict a war long after it has started. It's like predicting WW II in 1942. The Syrian war, which we have a heavy hand in - before and after it began, started in 2011. That article was written in 2013. And did you check the bio of the author. It's easy to predict a war after it has started and when you have inside knowledge and a hand in how the war should proceed and end.
The notion that the Syrian Revolution began with foreign (especially US) meddling is absurd. In 2011, the US was in the process of normalizing relations with the assad regime. Obama had appointed a new ambassador the year before. Clinton thought assad was a 'reformer.' The war broke out for a very simple reason: assad's forces kept shooting peaceful protesters. Despite assad's violence, the Revolution remained largel…
Please clarify how this is possible. I don't see how this narrative can be correct.
First two protesters were killed 18 March 2011 (Hussam Abdel Wali Ayyash and Akram Jawabreh.) Then already in March 23, 2011 two another men who were killed (Sa’er Yahya Merhej and Habeel Anis Dayoub) were part of the Syrian Arab Army and not civilians. It seems that initially peaceful protests turned into violent almost immediately because they were hijacked by organized militants. Armed gunmen were already moving into Syria long before the protests. http://www.innercitypress.com/LASomSyria.pdf
According to the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, 2,569 Syrian government forces were killed by March 2012 while total number of people killed was 5,000.
This is a pretty good article and worth a read for people who are not already informed. They were not completely correct. They seem to underestimate the stability and staying power of Jordan. Both US and Israel help to make sure that Jordan is protected. Stability of monarchies are typically underestimated. Syria's government has not fallen, and Nusra (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) never managed to unify the rebel to any…
If I've got this right, in Syria, Iran is opposed to ISIS/Daesh and Saudis are funding them? While the Russians are supporting the status-quo Assad/Alawhite faction and the American backed "liberation" factions have mostly died out? (People seem to have stopped talking about AQ in the context of Syria?)
Well, I have a problem with saying "Saudis are funding them". Some people, even some in government are funding many different groups and maybe ISIS. The state itself does not directly fund ISIS.
ISIS today is self funded, they function more like a normal state and they are taxing people, selling of assets and more.
> While the Russians are supporting the status-quo Assad/Alawhite faction
Yes. The Russians support Assad.
> the American backed "liberation" factions have mostly died out
There never really was such a thing. Different American organisations have given support to different fraction, but it was never very much of unified front.
The US does still support the Syrian Kurds. The Kurds are usually not seen as part of the "rebel" fraction.
> (People seem to have stopped talking about AQ in the context of Syria?)
As I said in my comment, AQ is fractured. ISIS, al-Sham (Nusra) are all splinters of AQ (or spliters of splinters). AQ central can not control them and those groups fight each other as well.
I don't know if there is a "formally" affiliated AQ branch in Syria or Iraq atm, not a powerful one.
Iran is trying to defeat ISIS as well. They mostly want to have strong foot in Iraq and they want to prevent Syria from falling. This is why Hezbollah is fighting in Syria, and in Iraq there are groups like it as well.
Turkey is trying to prevent a Kurdish controlled belt from the sea along the sudden boarder because the see the PKK and YPG as the same.
This article should have a (2013) tag at the end of it. But yeah, the Hoover Institute predicted this fight pretty damn well.
It's easy to predict a war long after it has started. It's like predicting WW II in 1942. The Syrian war, which we have a heavy hand in - before and after it began, started in 2011. That article was written in 2013. And did you check the bio of the author. It's easy to predict a war after it has started and when you have inside knowledge and a hand in how the war should proceed and end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is going to require an international commitment like nuclear disarmament and the convention against landmines. It would also require the US to stop doing it.
It's also real hard when a dictator pops up shooting civilian willy-nilly, and you know you have the power to stop him, but you don't.