it is a slogan or perhaps complexes and it is not sustainable to make the policy from the slogans.
the bulls are slaughtered and eaten, the cats are not and they do defend themselves when truly needed.
mais voila, if it is insisted the repetition of past error is required…
What about this ?
http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-syrian-rebels-keeping-druze-safe-in-exchange-for-israeli-aid/
…or this
All God’s beautiful children living in harmony.
Bulls get put down. Cats don’t. Bad analogy (like animal analogies generally).
. Or domestic abuse ones; who the hell came up with those…
Don’t think so. The events of the last fortnight means that “direct involvement” would result in confrontation with Mother Russia and Papa Putin. Which is not in anybody’s interests, especially not Israels.
That is with respect not crazy, that is stupid. Its worse stupidity then Saakashvili showed in 2008.
Shooting down a Russian plane (forced to?:rolleyes:) means a dead Russian, and means Russian retaliation. At a level where Israel cannot match, retaliate or even frankly do much to mitigate.
Is that long hair thing true ?
So that was an interesting video - interview with FSA fighter in hospital, lying next to two al-Nusra guys with their bed clothes pulled over their heads. I suppose the best you could say is that you can’t tell who you take in at night very easily.
And then footage of border guards training exercises to keep out al Nusra.
In a few years time is this going to end up with al Nusra bombs planted in London or Jerusalem ?
No. Putin will fight a war of absolute brutality. ISIS will be told to surrender or die. this is the only way to excise the cancer…
Excellente ralph, with all your learning I have seen these years, I also would like to hear from you about the success of this approach in the Afghanistan and even the recent Ukraine and how it has perfectly served the Russian objectives. We can then see how the amazing Putin will overcome in the Syria…
I am sure this is not actually about some of the american domestic politics.
Putin is not fighting ISIS. He’s fighting the other militias, who threaten Assad’s hold over the small area left in his control.
Russia’s only concern is to help Assad solidify his rule over a chunk of land large enough that on a map there will be room to print the word “syria”, and hold a Russian naval base. Putin will happily surrender the rest of the country to ISIS.
ISIS is smart enough not to attack Russia, so they will leave Assad alone, locked up in his fiefdom-- Nominally in charge, but in reality just a Russian puppet. ISIS will then use its base in Syria to become a major, major force in the world.
And all the way, politically correct Western leaders and professors of politcal science will assure us that ISIS is nothing to worry about.
There is no chance of ISIS ever becoming “a major, major force in the world.” Slowly but surely, their millions of enemies will grind them into dust.
Are there any Western leaders or “professors of politcal [sic!] science” who claim that “ISIS is nothing to worry about”? In all honesty I can’t think of a single one.
It just occurred to me how sometimes the foreign policy debates on this board are a cross between the Atlantic magazine and Yahoo Answers. Complex topics, but then so much silliness.
…or Moscow most likely. The FSA will hand over some supplies the Saudis or America gave them, and Nusra will do something heinous in the Moscow metro.
Then Russian public opinion will be super heated both towards the Islamists and NATO. And Putin will go up to 95% approval rating. But then Nusra will bomb an American target and the Russians will see a value in supporting them…
They could flip flop between both powers attacking one on behalf of the other in turn, auctioning their services to the great powers.
What exactly is the American strategy in Syria?
“And that, Detective, is the right question.” -from the Movie ‘I Robot’
Wish to hell I had a good answer for it.
I will add that (IMHO) too often we (and in this I include both Repubs and Dems) operate on the old assumption that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It would be much better to use the Schlock Mercenary (webcomic you should read-end advert) interpretation of it: The enemy of my enemy is my enemies’ enemy: No more. No less."
Press on.
Assad should go, but it isn’t going to happen any time soon, so make life hard for him but don’t get so invested that people expect immediate results.
Fail to do basic research. Using flawed data, ascertain what will protect American economic interests without causing a political backlash at home. Cloak in rhetoric about freedom and democracy.
Oh, sorry, you were asking about the results, not the methodology.
Then: gauge who is likely to win, or at least not lose, relying heavily on intelligence provided by Israel. Offer them very limited military support and make extravagant promises for the future. Hope they believe you. Hope they win.
Even though he got a lot of flak for it, Obama’s “we don’t have a strategy yet” comment last year reflected a basic truth about this conflict: the US does not really have a clear vital national interest in Syria. Absent such an interest, it’s pretty hard to define objectives, not to mention a strategy.
AFAICT the US “strategy,” if you can call it that, is to avoid the commitment of too many US resources to a conflict whose outcome frankly doesn’t matter all that much to our own security or interests. In that regard, US strategy has been largely successful.
I say “largely” successful, because in parallel to this Obama seems to be employing a political strategy of doing whatever half-measures he thinks will appease his domestic hawkish critics; so far, the cost of those half-measures has been relatively low (i.e. the $500MM wasted on training rebels), but it has been rather embarrassing to him personally. Which frankly he deserves, for not taking a firmer non-interventionist stance on the whole Syria mess.
The US has plenty of interests it’s just impotent - it has just stopped one idea after blowing $500 million on a total of “5 or 6” trained fighters. Most credit you can give Obama is for not firing off rockets to make it seem he knows what he’s doing for domestic consumption.
Being a post enlightenment civilisation with a secular governing philosopy, can it ever be enthusiastic about a war in which all sides are religious - if there isn’t enough of a business incentive ?
If the USA rigorously backed the most secular and progressive rebels with intent to create a truly modern state, that would scare the shit out of it’s partners around the region, and upset all sorts of god fearers at home.
I’ve never seen, in the big media, a political manifesto produced by the opposition which looks anything like a declaration of independence or bill of rights or constitution. So people are left wondering what they are supporting.