All of this proves my point…that anything we could do in Syria will ultimately be wrong. Assad will do anything to assure his survival-remember the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”? We would be most unwise to get involved in this war. Wait till the major players have exhausted themselves.
It’s been two thousand years, and they aren’t even breathing hard.
I don’t want ISIS to win. I don’t want Assad to win. I don’t want the war to go on.
On the one hand, we have tragedy. On the other, horror. God grant us the wisdom to choose wisely.
Regards,
Shodan
How did you arrive at that number?
By noticiing that it’s the Middle East.
Regards,
Shodan
So you believe that prior to (roughly) 15 A.D., there were never any wars in the Middle East? Or perhaps that in (roughly) 15 A.D., a specific war begun which continues to this day…?
If you had written that “it’s been going on since the seventh century,” I would at least get what point you were trying to make.
It’s a bit like the last conference on Ukraine; the US in the shape of John Kerry can stand around outside the room pretending he and the US is part of the decision-making action. It really isn’t.
So Obama’s policies are a disaster?
The only stupid one is Obama?
Really? We’ve got ISIS and rebels and Assad ruthlessly killing each other but the only bad guy here is Obama?
As an American, I don’t want our country involved in this mess. None of the above players are proven good guys worth spending our money and lives on. Please share the intel you possess identifying the pro US/pro democracy groups we should be backing. This civil war/insurgency/rebellion is never going to be sorted out by the US, our involvement in these types of conflicts never end well for us, and no matter what we do, we’re always labeled the evil bad occupier/oppressor. Every. Single. Time.
Look, you’ve already labeled Obama a bad guy and he’s using restraint. You say, “Obama expects the rebels to fight for him”, and what exactly would that be?
Assad is trying to do what the Algerians did with the GIA in the 90’s but will fail, because his country is ethnically and religiously divided, and the cockpit for numerous powers to play around in.
I hope the country will fracture and Latakia becomes a proto-Alawite state, if not, they will be the next in line for a Genocide after their spectacular fall from power.
Syria and Iraq are NOT worth saving, the Middle East needs ethnically/religiously Homogenous states because they seem incapable of living with each other. Maybe after every ethnic group feels comfortable enough with their own little piece of land, can they conceive the virtues of cooperation.
I always find it charming that some people believe that without wicked old imperialists — or wicked old Amerika — drawing up borders to keep tribes separate, there would be no borders, and no divisions amongst the free and happy peoples. Just mutual love, and a marked absence of government.
Are there people who believe this?
So was it the birth of Christ or the execution of Christ that set off these 2000 years of turmoil?
Enjoy my hummmble regards,
CarnalK
well you’ll be pleased to know, despite trying desperately to be seen to be involved, it really isn’t.
Assad is nearly broke-so how does he get weapons? I suspect that this war will be kept going…but people with a lot of money. Would the Saudis be interested in playing off Assad against ISIS? Of course, ISIS seems to have lots of american weapons (thanks to the Iraqi army). So this could go on for quite some time.
I believe he gets them from Russia, as part of the deal Putin brokered after Obama drew his “red line” against CWs. Which deal is working out about as well as expected - that is to say, oops.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t expect Russia supply them for free. I’d think Iran provides the funds for the purchase of weapons in Russia.
ISIS has also been accused of several chemical weapons attacks.
No, you are correct - Russia brokered the deal partly to continue weapons sales, and Iran has been more-or-less allied with Syria since the Iran-Iraq war.
I don’t want ISIS to win, I don’t want Syria to win, I don’t want Iran to win, and I don’t want the war to continue. Fuck, if the Kurds win and get their own country, twenty minutes after that they will declare war on somebody.
Regards,
Shodan
Your first question is sensible and I’ll answer it and say we had no right to invade Iraq in 2003.
Second question, I turn to you and ask what evidence have you got that we or some outside actor(s) turned Syria into a hellhole due to the fact of a trade agreements with Iran? What did the trade agreement entail, and why would it threaten foreign countries so much that they would fund a revolution in Syria?
I think that question is quite baseless, Syria and Iran trading in whatever is no threat to us or any country in that region. No proof exists that we funded the uprising in Syria. After five years we have NEVER turned our guns toward Assad and have used every opportunity to avoid a direct confrontation with his regime. If we or some other nation is gung ho and hell bent for Bashar Assad, why is he still in power. Sure an invasion like Iraq is out of the question, but we can do what we did in Libya, give air cover to the rebels, weapons and everything and have them throw out Assad.
Oh but we have not done that, even the rebels we do train are for the purpose of fighting ISIS- NOT Assad! Why he is still there? Syria was one of poorest countries in the region before the war, and Iran has been an underperforming nation economically. It’s oil output even before the hardest hit sanctions of 4 million barrels was a far cry from the early 1970’s peak of 6 million bpd.
Don’t tell my you are those with a theory of some secret of currency that would have collapsed the U.S economy and that of other world economies? You know how Saddam Hussein was going to do this so he was overthrown or how Gaddafi was about to inaugurate an African single currency so the global powers decided to do away with him! Forgetting the fact that the colonel was in power for over 40 years and most of his unity places came to naught.
So please make sense, and answer the question.
Now lastly on to your third and last question. That is true that we have no right to meddle in Ukraine, BUT you missed one point! The former president of Ukraine was thrown out legally by parliament, impeached. Ukraine has the right to throw out it’s president legally. And the Ukrainians have every right to want to see their country move towards European Union and NATO membership.
What RIGHT does the tyrant Putin have to decided what a neighboring country should do with it’s foreign policy? What right does Russia have to annex a part of Crimea illegally and thus BREAKING and VIOLATING the 1994 agreement which stipulated that Ukraine should be respected by outside powers!
Also it seems Putin did not turn out to be the genius so many of his lovers around the world thought he was?
Can you answer that?
I agree 100%.
The legality of that Ukrainian "impeachment " is highly debatable.
Two thousand years is several centuries older than Islam.