Meanwhile, in Syria

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by mr friendly guy »

Broomstick wrote:I keep hearing "Obama fucked up". I'd be interested in hearing what people think a non-fucked course of action for the US would have been.
Er the article pretty much said what they thought the US should have done. Whether you agree with it is another matter. Just for the record, I have no idea whether it would work. I will reproduce the relevant spiel because the article is a bit a long read.
Tabler: Right, but this is the result of the American miscalculation that the Syria crisis could be contained. And so we’re seeing now the failure of policy which happened years ago. It’s not just about military intervention in Syria. It is about the failure to create safe areas in order to protect [people] so that they wouldn’t go running for their lives to Europe. And that’s the real tragedy here. And it’s simply because the White House did not believe that the cost was worth it.

Gilsinan: Do you think that that calculation—that the Syria crisis could be contained—obviously it’s wrong in hindsight, but could this have been foreseen, or was it a reasonable gamble at the time that turns out to have failed?

Tabler: No, it wasn’t a reasonable gamble. All the trajectories for displacement of persons, as part of the overall humanitarian disaster generated by the civil war, these trends have been present for years. It’s not that the government didn’t pick them up—many in the U.S. government did. It’s that the decision was to do nothing that involved efforts to protect civilians. There was a decision to support the rebels covertly, there was a decision to try and get a train-and-equip program to fight ISIL, we know all about that, it didn’t go well. But there was no effort to protect civilians inside of Syria, other than to distribute aid in neighboring countries and to try and get that aid across the border.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by cosmicalstorm »

Broomstick wrote:I keep hearing "Obama fucked up". I'd be interested in hearing what people think a non-fucked course of action for the US would have been.
He's given tons of goods to the rebels, the US should have stayed out completely or picked one side and given it it's overwhelming support to end the hostilities as fast as possible. It's plausible that there was no turn of events that would not have been violent to some extent.
But this current never ending war is very bad, a shorter war would have left more of the infrastructure intact for the rebuilding whatever wretched heap of ethnic states that come out of Syrias bleeding cadaver.

More rumors of Saudi invasion:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... s?from=mdr
Saudi Arabia moves troops to Turkey as 'base for Syria invasion'
Lizzie Dearden | The Independent | Feb 13, 2016, 05.17 PM IST
Highlights
• Saudi Arabia offered to send ground troops in Syria to help rebels, fight ISIS
• Riyadh is opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
• West and Sunni Arab majority Middle East countries back rebels
• Assad has support of Russia, Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah militia
• Assad has vowed to take control of the whole Syria again
Saudi Arabian soldiers during a military parade. (AP file photo)Saudi Arabian soldiers during a military parade. (AP file photo)
Saudi Arabia is sending troops and fighter jets to Turkey's Incirlik military base ahead of a possible ground invasion of Syria. The Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, confirmed the deployment in a statement to the Yeni Safak newspaper on Saturday, days before a temporary ceasefire is due to come into force.

"Saudi Arabia declared its determination against Daesh — the Arabic term for Islamic State (ISIS) — by saying that they were ready to send both jets and troops," he said. "At every coalition meeting we have always emphasised the need for an extensive result-oriented strategy in the fight against the Daesh terrorist group," he added.

READ ALSO:
Syria says any foreign troops entering the country would return 'in coffins'


"If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch an operation from the land," he said.

He confirmed that planes and military personnel were being sent to Incirlik, in Adana near the Syrian border, but said numbers had not been confirmed. Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, said Russia's intervention would not help Assad stay in power in an interview published on Saturday. "There will be no Bashar al-Assad in the future," he told a German newspaper.

Cooperation with Turkey could prove problematic if Saudi Arabia follows its definition of "terrorists" to include Kurdish fighters, who have been one of the most effective forces against ISIS on the ground.

READ ALSO:
Iran mocks Saudi Arabia's offer to send ground troops to Syria


Cavusoglu's statement also raised the possibility of conflict between Turkey and Russia, which he accused of hitting the so-called Islamic State with only 12 per cent of its air strikes. "Russia's target is supporting Assad, we all know that," he added. "But the question is this: Who will stop Russia doing that?"

Ash Carter, the American defence secretary, said on Friday that he expected the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates to send commandos to help recapture Islamic State's Syrian stronghold and de facto capital of Raqqa.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey are among Assad's foreign opponents who have been supplying selected rebel groups with weapons via a Turkey-based operations centre. Some of the vetted groups, mainly part of the Free Syrian Army, have received military training overseen by the US Central Intelligence Agency.

READ ALSO:
How Saudis sending ground forces into Syria will affect the civil war


In the wake of Saudi Arabia's proposal to send in ground troops on Thursday, the Russian prime minister claimed the move could spark a new world war.

"A ground operation draws everyone taking part in it into a war," he told the newspaper Handelsblatt. "The Americans and our Arab partners must consider whether or not they want a permanent war."


Russia started its intervention in September at the request of Assad, Vladimir Putin's long-term ally, to support the Syrian regime. The Kremlin has repeatedly claimed it is bombing "terrorists" but has been condemned by the UN and the international community for evidence it is predominantly targeting civilian areas held by anti-government rebels.

Top Comment
New Saudi leadership (King Salman & Defence Minister Mohammad bin Salman) has shown its impulsive streak in its over... Read MoreAam Aadmi

READ ALSO:
Assad vows to retake all of Syria, keep 'fighting terrorism'


Russia's intervention is supported by Iran, which admits sending troops to train Syrian forces but has been accused of sending its forces into combat with rebels.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Thanas »

Broomstick wrote:I keep hearing "Obama fucked up". I'd be interested in hearing what people think a non-fucked course of action for the US would have been.
1. Put ground troops into Iraq to fight ISIS
2. More aid to Turkey and Libanon to create refugee camps that actually have livable conditions
3. Sharing a bigger refugee burden
4. Fund the UN refugee organizations
5. Give incentives and political cover to states who take in refugees

Any of those options would be better than what he has done.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Purple »

Well if we are listing options how about:
- Not attack Iraq and thus destabilize the region
- Not support the rebels but instead support Assad thus again not destabilizing the region
- Not support every single thing they supported for the better half of their existence in a bid to destabilize everything that can be destabilized
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Thanas »

Number 1 and 3 are hardly Obama's fault.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Purple »

Thanas wrote:Number 1 and 3 are hardly Obama's fault.
True. But we can and should list them to exemplify the fact that he failed to learn from them.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
jwl
Jedi Master
Posts: 1137
Joined: 2013-01-02 04:31pm

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by jwl »

How would supporting assad help matters? Wouldn't that give him leeway to kill even more people than he has been doing already?
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Purple »

jwl wrote:How would supporting assad help matters? Wouldn't that give him leeway to kill even more people than he has been doing already?
The whole reason the Syrian situation turned into a civil war was because at the beginning when the protests were still peaceful the west supported them and gave every indication that if only the people were to start a revolution they'd be aided in overthrowing him. If the west had instead supported Assad during this period the protests would have fizzled out and maybe ended in a couple thousand dead innocents. A far better situation than what we have now.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28796
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Broomstick »

Purple wrote:
Thanas wrote:Number 1 and 3 are hardly Obama's fault.
True. But we can and should list them to exemplify the fact that he failed to learn from them.
Except the question was what Obama should have done, not the 24,321 things leading up to the Syrian crisis and who was at fault for those.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Purple »

Broomstick wrote:
Purple wrote:
Thanas wrote:Number 1 and 3 are hardly Obama's fault.
True. But we can and should list them to exemplify the fact that he failed to learn from them.
Except the question was what Obama should have done, not the 24,321 things leading up to the Syrian crisis and who was at fault for those.
And the answer is that he should have learned from the mistakes of the past I posted and not have made the one I posted.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by cosmicalstorm »

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Thanas »

Yeah not much of a chance Russia will be less destructive than the IS. Probably doing more to wipe out culture right now than the IS is doing.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Purple »

We might not like it but fact of the matter is that you can't win a war without killing a few civilians. The allies knew this in WW2 and the Russians know this today. But for some reason Europe and the west seem to have forgotten this lesson in the meantime.

Tell me, all of you. Or rather each of you individually. Would you prefer a WW2 style strategic bombing a campaign of Syria that actually exterminates ISIS or an ineffectual precision bombing one that fails to produce meaningful results for another 20 years? And yes, I know these are two extremes and the truth is in the middle. But the entire point is to see which extreme you are leaning toward.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Thanas »

Purple, look at a map of Syria.

Then realize how dumb your statement is.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Purple »

My comment was aimed in general not at just this one instance. I am just sick and tired of the constant complaining I hear from media and this forum of how the Russians are bad and indiscriminate and cause too much collateral damage. And it has just boiled over. I am no fan of Putin but the bottom line is that if the west was to do the same as he does this war would have been over by now. And if the west was to do the right thing and go all WW2 on ISIS this would be over in a week. As far as I am concerned anyone criticizing the way Russia is going about the Syrian situation is part of the problem.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Purple wrote:Would you prefer a WW2 style strategic bombing a campaign of Syria that actually exterminates ISIS or an ineffectual precision bombing one that fails to produce meaningful results for another 20 years?
You do realize strategic bombing campaigns don't have any proven track record of actually exterminating an opponent single-handedly, without a corresponding mass land assault? Fuck, both Germany and Japan were subject to the most intensive strategic bombing campaigns ever: the first only surrendered after a bloody and bitter invasion, and the second only surrendered when a weapon of theretofore unseen destructive power was unleashed upon them. Hardly good examples for proving your point. Strategic bombing campaigns are good at destroying industrial bases, fortifications, and large scale constructive works ... of which ISIS has none.

All strategic bombing would do is kill a fuck ton of civilians while not proportionately impacting ISIS any more than a targeted bombing campaign.
And if the west was to do the right thing and go all WW2 on ISIS this would be over in a week.
Pretty ironic that you would say this, only a few posts after criticizing the US for its invasion of Iraq in the first place. This is the EXACT same mentality that let to Iraq, you dumb fuck (and Vietnam, and Afghanistan...). The belief that all you need to do is ride in on your golden fucking steed, kill the bad guy army, and leave and everything will be all better, when history has shown that such an invasion would just lead to a long and bloody occupation with no guarantee of addressing the root problems of which ISIS is just a symptom.

God, could you at least not be a hypocrite? I mean, ignorance is one thing, but at least be consistent about it.
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by cosmicalstorm »

Big blast in Ankara. Smells like Erdogans own Reichtag-fire.
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Purple »

Ziggy Stardust wrote:Pretty ironic that you would say this, only a few posts after criticizing the US for its invasion of Iraq in the first place. This is the EXACT same mentality that let to Iraq, you dumb fuck (and Vietnam, and Afghanistan...). The belief that all you need to do is ride in on your golden fucking steed, kill the bad guy army, and leave and everything will be all better, when history has shown that such an invasion would just lead to a long and bloody occupation with no guarantee of addressing the root problems of which ISIS is just a symptom.

God, could you at least not be a hypocrite? I mean, ignorance is one thing, but at least be consistent about it.
You really have less of a grasp of the English language than I do. Like this is the second time in as many days that you've just plain failed to read my writing.

I am not saying that the west should not go to war. I have newer said this. And you can look my posting history up if you don't believe it. What I am saying is what I have said many times now, that being that the west needs to stop half-assing its wars.

In every war this side of Vietnam or arguably even Korea the west has used the same stupid mentality we see today. The idea that you can win wars without getting your hands dirty. That you don't need to commit 100%. That you do not need to kill a bunch of civilians, lose a whole lot of men and money and spend decades demolishing a place to the ground and than systematically building it up again. And it has lead to failure after failure after failure. Every recent war is an example of this.

The west does not want to fight its wars. It wants "police actions" and "limited deployments" and other buzzwords for "throw a couple of bombs to make it seem like you are doing something and be home by next X-mass." They don't want to occupy a country for 20 years, systematically build it up from the ashes and reeducate its population such as was done with Germany in the late 40's. And thus the west and the civilized world will by relation fail. And ISIS will win. Because the only way to beat ISIS is total war.

So from my point of view the solution to this is simple. Either go to total war against ISIS or get out of the way and let someone who is not as squeamish do so.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27382
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by NecronLord »

Purple wrote:Tell me, all of you. Or rather each of you individually. Would you prefer a WW2 style strategic bombing a campaign of Syria that actually exterminates ISIS or an ineffectual precision bombing one that fails to produce meaningful results for another 20 years? And yes, I know these are two extremes and the truth is in the middle. But the entire point is to see which extreme you are leaning toward.
I reject this as a false dilemma. Precision bombing is a generally more effective tool of warfare than saturation bombing, particularly against military targets. This is why all militaries have adopted it, it's not due to 'namby pamby wishy-washy' concerns. There's certainly tools where humanitarian concerns have shaped policy - cluster bombs and air-dropped mines for instance, which might be useful, but saturation bombing would achieve nothing that the current campaigns would not.

Frankly, even in WW2, saturation bombing was not always effective at destroying military targets or civilian morale.

What the Russians are doing is precision bombing, it has looser rules of engagement compared to the USA - there's the famous anecdote of the Iraqi officer saying he'd rather have the Russians because half the time when they call in the USAF for an airstrike the American planes circle around, decide the target is ambiguous or that civilians would be harmed, and then fly off leaving the Iraqi ground forces in the lurch - but it is still precision bombing.

A lot of the contention is due to the Russian precision bombing being aimed at degrading the abilities of all groups opposing Bashar al-Assad, including at hospitals that serve rebel groups, and punishing the Syrian Turkmen group, rather than hitting ISIL exclusively. That's not the same thing as just saying you should try a WW2-esque saturation bombing campaign on Raqqa, which would accomplish nothing that the current Russian and US campaigns don't, oh, and would make even more people refugees, to say nothing of the direct and indirect civilian casualties.
In every war this side of Vietnam or arguably even Korea the west has used the same stupid mentality we see today. The idea that you can win wars without getting your hands dirty. That you don't need to commit 100%. That you do not need to kill a bunch of civilians, lose a whole lot of men and money and spend decades demolishing a place to the ground and than systematically building it up again. And it has lead to failure after failure after failure. Every recent war is an example of this.
But... that's exactly how the USSR helped its ally win Vietnam. They kept their hands clean for the most part, committed fractionally, didn't (themselves) kill a heap of civilians, though the NVA did according to some narratives, and the Vietnamese took over as much South Vietnamese infrastructure as possible.

The difference compared to this, is that the USSR had a credible ally on the ground that could take over and govern, while both in modern Iraq, and historical South Vietnam, US allies have been unable to function.
Because the only way to beat ISIS is total war.

So from my point of view the solution to this is simple. Either go to total war against ISIS or get out of the way and let someone who is not as squeamish do so.
The only way to beat ISIL is to have something to replace it. And that is not a scorched earth bombing campaign.

Look at the Mahdist War in Sudan in the 19th century, The British were able to win most direct battles against the 'Mahdi' and his forces (though the 'Mahdi' was extremely talented and his forces very innovative with what they had) but never able to promote a credible local government. The British were able to defeat the Mahdists in battle at Abu Klea and Suakin, but without any means to actually govern the Sudan (thanks to the lassitude and corruption of the Egyptian and Ottoman rulers) they basically failed to do anything with those victories. They had, like you, the notion that just inflicting a savage beating on Johnny Foreigner would make him wise-up; in truth, it does nothing of the sort, severity of punishment doesn't dissuade people, certainty of punishment, regardless of its comparative humanity, does. Most ISIL fighters don't think they personally will be bombed, wheras if they know they'll be arrested by a credible government force, they will reconsider.

This is broadly the same situation here; Russia and the West can keep winning victories using its superior technology; they were only able to defeat the Mahdists by comprehensive reform of local forces to allow the Egyptians to actually garrison the Sudan, whereupon after the battle of Omdurman (the Mahdist capital) they were able to actually consolidate and govern the territory.

Winning battles is broadly unimportant if you wish to change the rulers in a country. Having a credible ground force to then rule it matters far more.

I'm not sure if any (including Assad) forces are capable of displacing ISIL as governance in south-east Syria at this point, and the Iraqi government forces have been unfortunately ineffective as well. And no-one in Syria is politically acceptable to all the external powers – the Russians want Assad, the Turks and West want anyone-but-Assad-and-ISIL and the Turks really really don’t want the Kurds (and the Kurds don’t necessarily want to rule outside their land claims) – so it's a cluster-fuck, and just sending the B52s to flatten whole cities will not make it less of one.

There is no realistic solution.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Purple wrote: You really have less of a grasp of the English language than I do. Like this is the second time in as many days that you've just plain failed to read my writing.
I'm snipping the rest of your bullshit because it is irrelevant, and just utterly ignoring everything about my post.

Both me and NecronLord have quoted you as saying that you think a WW2-style strategic bombing campaign will actually exterminate ISIS. THAT WAS THE STATEMENT YOU SAID. And that was the statement that I (and he) have refuted. You can't weasel out of it by claiming that we have 'less of a grasp of the English language' than you do, because we are responding to the literal words you typed in this thread, you stubborn buffoon. I didn't fail to read your writing, the fact that my post was QUOTING YOUR POST proves this.

Either respond to the points that I made in my post, or concede the fucking argument. Don't respond with a pathetic non sequitir.

I also expect you to show me where this mythical "second time" I failed to read your writing was.
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by cosmicalstorm »

Lovely to ser Putin make a mockery of the neocons. They are now willing to risk a nuclear war to assist the same terrorists they claim to oppose. Endless irony 8)


Democracy Now: Top U.S. and World News Headlines for Thursday, February 18

‹›


The Neoconservatives Are Brewing A Wider War In Syria — Paul Craig Roberts

By Paul Craig Roberts on February 18, 2016

Russian air power in support of the Syrian Army has turned the tide against the Islamist State. The invaders are being driven out. The neoconservatives cannot accept this defeat.

Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2016. A large explosion, believed to have been caused by a bomb.

by Paul Craig Roberts

While you are enjoying your Sunday, the insane neoconservatives who control Western foreign policy and their Turkish and Saudi Arabian vassals might be preparing the end of the world.

Any person who relies on Western media has no accurate idea of what is happening in Syria.
I will provide a brief summary and then send you to two detailed accounts.

The neoconservative Obama regime set-up the Syrian government headed by Assad for overthrow. A long propaganda campaign conducted in Washington’s behalf by the Western media portrayed the democratically-elected Assad as a “brutal dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.” Washington organized and supported a front group posing as democrats and involved them in conflict with the Syrian military.

Bashar al Assad and his wife Asma al-Assad, voting.

With conflict underway, Washington began predicting that something had to be done to overthrow Assad before he used “chemical weapons against his own people.” Obama turned these predictions into a “red line.” When Assad used chemical weapons against Washington’s puppets, the US would invade Syria.

With the “red line” drawn, a false flag chemical weapons attack was staged, or an accident occurred, that Washington used to say that Assad, despite the US warning, had crossed the “red line.”

Preparations for an invasion began, but hit two roadblocks.

“Gung-ho prime minister Cameron and his sabre-rattling lieutenant, William Hague, were so eager to crank up their war machine that they’d lost all caution and reason. They’ve paid the price with a quite brutal Commons defeat.” Stuart Littlewood, UK.

David Cameron, Washington’s puppet prime minister of Great Britain was unable to deliver British support for the invasion as the Parliament voted it down. This left Washington uncovered and vulnerable to the charge of naked aggression, a war crime.

Russian diplomacy threw up the other road block by securing the removal of all chemical weapons from Syria.

Former U.S. President George W Bush said: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul. He’s a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that’s the beginning of a very constructive relationship,”

Their invasion plan frustrated, the neoconservatives sent the jihadists they had used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya to overthrow Assad. Initially known as ISIS, then ISIL, then the Islamist State, and now Daesh, a term that can be interpreted as an insult. Perhaps the intention of the name changes is to keep the Western public thoroughly confused about who is who and what is what.

Isis fighters, Photograph: AP

Washington now pretends that it is fighting the Islamist State, but Washington is doing its best to frustrate the success of the Russian/Syrian alliance that is defeating the Islamist State..

Washington’s support of the Islamist State is the cause of the war in Syria. General Michael Flynn, the recently retired head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has stated publicly that it was a “willful decision” of the Obama regime to support ISIS.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... nment.html

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ira ... b2818af89c

The neoconservative insistence that “Assad must go” comprises a threat to the security of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the Lebanese force that has twice defeated Israel’s attempt to annex southern Lebanon for its water resources. Hezbollah is dependent on Syrian and Iranian support for its arms and financing. Israel wants rid of Hezbollah.

The Islamic State (ISIS) that Washington is trying to create in Syria would provide Washington with a means of destabilizing Iran and Russia by exporting jihadism into those countries. The Russian Federation has Muslim populations as do former provinces of the Soviet Union that now cooperate with Russia. By bogging down Russia in internal conflicts, Washington can move Russia out of the way of Washington’s exercise of hegemony. Similarly, non-Persian populations in Iran could be radicalized by jihadism and used to destabilize Iran.

In order to protect themselves, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah have come to the support of Syria. The Russians are there legally at the invitation of the Syrian government. The US is there illegally.

Russian air power in support of the Syrian Army has turned the tide against the Islamist State.
The invaders are being driven out. The neoconservatives cannot accept this defeat.

Washington is preparing a Syrian invasion by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which is to split Syria in half with Washington controlling the eastern part with the oil fields.

Possibly this is a bluff to get Russia to accept a Syrian settlement less favorable to Russian, Iranian, and Syrian interests. However, the Russian government cannot risk that it is only a bluff. If a US/Turkish/Saudi force were to arrive first in Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, Syria would be dismembered.

The Russians can get there first by dropping in paratroopers. In other words, what the insane neoconservatives are doing is giving the Russian government a big incentive to introduce Russian ground troops into the conflict. Once those troops are there, you can safely bet that the insane neoconservatives will cause conflict between them and US/Turkish forces. A wider war will have begun from which neither side can back down.

Source

Here is a description of the race to Raqqa:http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/02/th ... -win-.html

Here is The Saker’s take on the seriousness of the situation:http://thesaker.is/week-eighteen-of-the ... -imminent/


User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by cosmicalstorm »

TOS1 flattening a hillside
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2f6_1455899048


Will Saudi send SAM? Will Turkey invade?
Risking Nuclear War for Al Qaeda?February 18, 2016

Exclusive: The risk that the multi-sided Syrian war could spark World War III continues as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and U.S. neocons seek an invasion that could kill Russian troops — and possibly escalate the Syrian crisis into a nuclear showdown, amazingly to protect Al Qaeda terrorists, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

When President Barack Obama took questions from reporters on Tuesday, the one that needed to be asked – but wasn’t – was whether he had forbidden Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria, because on that question could hinge whether the ugly Syrian civil war could spin off into World War III and possibly a nuclear showdown.

If Turkey (with hundreds of thousands of troops massed near the Syrian border) and Saudi Arabia (with its sophisticated air force) follow through on threats and intervene militarily to save their rebel clients, who include Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, from a powerful Russian-backed Syrian government offensive, then Russia will have to decide what to do to protect its 20,000 or so military personnel inside Syria.

President Barack Obama meets with Vice President Joe Biden and other advisers in the Oval Office on Feb. 2, 2016. [White House photo]

A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.

Given Erdogan’s megalomania or mental instability and the aggressiveness and inexperience of Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman (defense minister and son of King Salman), the only person who probably can stop a Turkish-Saudi invasion is President Obama. But I’m told that he has been unwilling to flatly prohibit such an intervention, though he has sought to calm Erdogan down and made clear that the U.S. military would not join the invasion.

So far, Erdogan has limited Turkey’s dir

... continued
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/18/r ... -al-qaeda/
User avatar
Esquire
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1582
Joined: 2011-11-16 11:20pm

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Esquire »

I think you need less hyperbolic news sources. President Obama is not a neoconservative, the chemical weapons were not some bizarre false-flag operation, the Washington Post is not a neocon mouthpiece, Turkey does not have hundreds of thousands of troops on the Syrian border and nobody is going to invade Syria*. Even if they did, it wouldn't cause World War Three, because - contrary to popular belief - it isn't possible to end up in charge of a major power and be the kind of nutjob who'd throw the world on the fire for a few scraps of 75%-empty desert.

*The Russians are the only people likely to do so, and they're a) already there, and b) were invited by the legal, if not necessarily the legitimate government.
“Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb
User avatar
Esquire
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1582
Joined: 2011-11-16 11:20pm

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Esquire »

And also, if there's one thing we've learned from history, it's that unilateral demands that independent allied nations do or not do something have always produced positive results and could in no way backfire horribly, especially in a very tense regional political situation.
“Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb
User avatar
Highlord Laan
Jedi Master
Posts: 1394
Joined: 2009-11-08 02:36pm
Location: Christo-fundie Theofascist Dominion of Nebraskistan

Re: Meanwhile, in Syria

Post by Highlord Laan »

Thanas wrote:
Broomstick wrote:I keep hearing "Obama fucked up". I'd be interested in hearing what people think a non-fucked course of action for the US would have been.
1. Put ground troops into Iraq to fight ISIS
2. More aid to Turkey and Libanon to create refugee camps that actually have livable conditions
3. Sharing a bigger refugee burden
4. Fund the UN refugee organizations
5. Give incentives and political cover to states who take in refugees

Any of those options would be better than what he has done.
And all of those options would have been shat on by Congress, blocked at every turn, defunded if they even started getting off the gorund, and obstructed to death, thus leading back to where we are now. People keep thinking that the President is able to somehow rule by decree, and that the american people are capable of thinking past soundbytes.

IIRC, a President has only 90 days to use military force without congressional approval, after that, it goes to the pit of voles the most obstructionist pack of assholes is US history. Now, any branch of the US military could have smashed Assad, the rebels, and ISIS to smoking rubble and ash inside that timeframe, but to do so would require using tactics that everyone would be bitching about afterwards.

Now, we could also have very well not got involved at all. At which point every hypocritical jackass screaming about Syria now would be screaming about how it's a moral duty for the US to "do something."

In short, the wrong politician is be blamed. Pardon. The wrong politician is being assigned all the blame. If you want to point fingers, do it at Capitol Hill.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and cruelty of the Irish.
Post Reply