ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,515
- 17,019
- 136
Well, after 200+ years we have to say it didn't work so I'm not sure why you think that would change.
But hey, what do I know, I'm not 100% Native American like you.
Well, after 200+ years we have to say it didn't work so I'm not sure why you think that would change.
But hey, what do I know, I'm not 100% Native American like you.
One can always come up with an explanation for what does not seem logical to one's ideas/beliefs. Right or Wrong
We have a very effective strategy of ensuring the region remains destabilized such that individuals we would generally regard as our enemies or at least those whose interests frequently diverge from ours -- on one side Assad, Hezbollah, Iran's various misfits who fight for them, etc, on another the Al Qaeda affiliates such as al nusra etc, and third ISIS, will all spend as much time as possible in the coming years trying to kill each other.
In those terms I think we have been doing a pretty good job....
In those terms I think we have been doing a pretty good job....
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
The U.S. Should give a fuck. Putin could probably care less about Syria. Putin is more interested in siding with Iran.... Helping an Iranian ally helps. Putin has a new market for weapons, has access to Iranian natural gas, and an all around good business environment in the Middle East starting with Iran. Sucks for Israel because now Iran can better fund Hamas and Hezbollah.
Now China is even getting involved in Syria.... But hey obama's golf game is really on point now.
Just an fyi, Russia is the 2nd largest producer of natural gas in the world as well as being the largest exporter.
One can always come up with an explanation for what does not seem logical to one's ideas/beliefs. Right or Wrong
Not if intellectual integrity means anything to you.
sm625
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2011
- 8,172
- 137
- 106
In a recent 60 minutes, Charlie Rose asked Vladimir Putin how he could know for sure that the US was behind the 2014 Ukraine coup against President Viktor Yanukovych?
Quoting Putin's response:
The sad thing is that most Americans still do not know that the entire Ukraine coup was in fact staged by the US, in an effort to destabilize the region and create a giant hole of anarchy to be filled in by extremists funded by American taxpayer dollars. Just like Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, you frickin name it, its the same story over and over and over. Not only will people not do anything about it, they will not even acknowledge that it is happening. A vote for Obama was a vote for more of it. A vote for Romney was a vote for more of it. A vote for Hillary will be a vote for more of it. A vote for Trump will be a vote for more of it. There is absolutely no conscious effort to actually put a stop to this bullcrap. Watching the GOP debates it was clear that every single republican wants to expand this policy of abject failure. Even Rand didnt do enough to distance himself from it. What sort of demonic power can capture an entire country in the way this warmongering thirst has captured america? This country has absolutely no control over its foreign policy. Nobody in a position of any sort of power or influence will lay out just how deep and dire this situation is. The problem lies here, not in Libya, not in Ukraine, not in Syria.
Quoting Putin's response:
The sad thing is that most Americans still do not know that the entire Ukraine coup was in fact staged by the US, in an effort to destabilize the region and create a giant hole of anarchy to be filled in by extremists funded by American taxpayer dollars. Just like Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, you frickin name it, its the same story over and over and over. Not only will people not do anything about it, they will not even acknowledge that it is happening. A vote for Obama was a vote for more of it. A vote for Romney was a vote for more of it. A vote for Hillary will be a vote for more of it. A vote for Trump will be a vote for more of it. There is absolutely no conscious effort to actually put a stop to this bullcrap. Watching the GOP debates it was clear that every single republican wants to expand this policy of abject failure. Even Rand didnt do enough to distance himself from it. What sort of demonic power can capture an entire country in the way this warmongering thirst has captured america? This country has absolutely no control over its foreign policy. Nobody in a position of any sort of power or influence will lay out just how deep and dire this situation is. The problem lies here, not in Libya, not in Ukraine, not in Syria.
Last edited:
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
That is actually the link about arming rebels, not about Obama's proposed military invasion. Although McCain definitely supported Obama on that at the time, most GOP opposed him, as did a small but significant Dem faction. That is why Obama initially declared that he had the right to act unilaterally but then backed down; he would have looked like an idiot authorizing an invasion only to be reined in a month later, before the invasion could actually be launched.
Quit getting your news from RT or another news agency funded by the Kremlin. This story about a western backed coup is absurd. Viktor Yanukovych own party voted for him to be ousted.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,974
- 140
- 106
http://nypost.com/2015/09/29/obama-has-turned-putin-into-the-worlds-most-powerful-leader/
NEW WORLD ORDER: PUTIN OUTSMARTS OBAMA
His celebration of the United Nations was reminiscent of scenes from 1950s movies that portrayed it as a place where problems are actually resolved. In reality, along the decades (and even more so in the last six years), the UN became so paralyzed that it can no longer serve as arbiter of global security.
NEW WORLD ORDER: PUTIN OUTSMARTS OBAMA
His celebration of the United Nations was reminiscent of scenes from 1950s movies that portrayed it as a place where problems are actually resolved. In reality, along the decades (and even more so in the last six years), the UN became so paralyzed that it can no longer serve as arbiter of global security.
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
Sanctions in place on Iran means that if Russia can pimp out Iranian oil and natural gas... it is a good deal for both countries. Iran gets Russian weapons and Russia gets money from selling those resources. Don't forget, Russia is facing sanctions as well.
bshole
Diamond Member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 8,315
- 1,215
- 126
Defective in the evolutionary sense? That is such a subjective/qualitative term.
Are you talking about deviation from the norm, because Einstein's thinking/brain deviated far far far from the norm. You aren't being entirely clear in your communications or perhaps I am just a shitty reader.... probably the latter.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Please elaborate on your claim regarding all of Obama's options being blocked by Congress.
The article linked in your 2nd post has nothing to do with any attempt by Obama to get rid of Assad. This was Obama's "red line" threat, a "pin-prick" (but not a pin-prick etc.) that would not have ousted Assad by any means. It was just punishment for using chem weapons against civilians.
In any case it was the Dem (Harry Reid) controlled senate just giving Obama some cover for failing to fulfill his threat. In fact, if you read your linked article the Senate didn't vote against it, Reid merely postponed the vote ostensibly to give Obama more time to make his case (or go for Putin's offer more likely).
Obama didn't ask for Congressional approval for bombing Libya. There's no reason to believe he 'suddenly' reversed course and felt he lacked authority to proceed w/o congressional approval.
Obama has never had a ME policy, much less one for Syria.
Obama clearly does not want a ground invasion (boots on the ground) of US troops. It's difficult to oust a foreign leaders without ground troops.
The other option was arming the rebels (Free Syrian Army). The civil war in Syria began in 2011. There was some effort to arm the FSA in 2012 but Obama and Dems opposed it. Last year Obama sought and obtained from Congress $500 million to arm the rebels etc. My understanding is that no funds have been used by Obama to arm anyone. Back in 2012 it was questionable who exactly would actually end up with the arms (FSA or ISIS). By 2014 it was way too late. Most don't think the FSA still exists.
TL;DR No one has stopped Obama from doing anything.
Fern
Sanctions are being dropped so Iran can sell it's own oil and natural gas. Iran doesn't need Russia.
Ventanni
Golden Member
- Jul 25, 2011
- 1,432
- 142
- 106
Before we can discuss policy, we have to talk about the overall problem in the Middle East.
Overall Problem: Rampant sectarian intolerance. Shi'ites don't like Sunnis, and Sunnis don't tolerate the Shi'ites. With Sadam in Iraq you had a minority Sunni population suppressing the majority Shi'ites. In Syria, you have the minority Alawite population, which is a spinoff of Shi'ite, largely suppressing the Sunni population. So for ANY of this to be resolved, the sectarian intolerance has to be addressed. That's not an easy thing to solve when eye-for-an-eye and blood-for-blood is such an ingrained mentality.
US Position: The US position recognizes the actual problem. The plan was to arm and train moderate rebels who believed in this too. They would come to power, and bam, you have people in power that actually start practicing tolerance. The problem? These individuals are very few and far between. By far the most dominant rebel groups in Syria are the ISIS-like fundamentalists. They're letting the FSA (Free Syrian Army) do most of the damage against the Syrian government, and when the Syrian government collapses, they'll swoop in and wipe out the FSA.
The end result of the US's current policy? Mass genocide of the Alawites. Further mass migration of the population. Solidification of ISIS's position, and with that escalation of war in Iraq. And because the Iraqi Army struggles battling just a smaller portion of the ISIS military, we can expect that a full strength ISIS invasion of Iraq will result in full US military intervention. Awesome!
Russian Strategy: The only thing of interest in Syria to Russia is the access it gives them to the Mediterranean. Oh yeah! That and because they want to build an Oil/NG pipeline from Iran to Iraq and through Syria to be a competitor to Russia's dominant supply of NG to Europe. If Assad gets ejected, then the pipeline gets built, and if the pipeline gets built, then Russia has competition to their NG empire.
So What Good Comes Out of Russia's Strategy?
The Russian strategy does one thing that the US strategy does not; it protects the Alawites. Putin doesn't care whether the Alawites are all slaughtered, but he does recognize that it'll happen. The Russian strategy also does one thing better than the US strategy by taking on the real threat to the Syrian regime directly, and that's ISIS.
The end result of the Russian policy? Assad will likely stay in power, a mass genocide will be prevented (after a lot more people die), ISIS will be bludgeoned by a real military on the ground for a change, and sectarian intolerance will stay the norm. Since the true issue will never be properly addressed though, ISIS-like elements will survive.
What SHOULD the world policy be? In order for the Syrian situation to truly be resolved, this requires a hugely expensive, costly, but necessary multinational coalition involving the US, Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to invade and divide up the country just like we did to Nazi Germany.
1. Assad stays in power to oversee the transitional government and/or the government becomes much more representative of the populace to begin the process of eroding the significant amount of intolerance within the region.
2. The Syrian Army stays intact. Can't make the same mistake.
3. The rebels required to lay down their arms and is completely forgiven just like the US South was.
4. Coalition militaries stick around long enough to enforce cooperation and re-assimilation of warring populaces together.
5. ISIS is wiped out. Completely.
6. Education campaigns in cooperation with tribes and mosques so that tolerance and love is practiced more regularly.
Trillions of dollars spent when all that had to be practiced was love. Awesome...
Overall Problem: Rampant sectarian intolerance. Shi'ites don't like Sunnis, and Sunnis don't tolerate the Shi'ites. With Sadam in Iraq you had a minority Sunni population suppressing the majority Shi'ites. In Syria, you have the minority Alawite population, which is a spinoff of Shi'ite, largely suppressing the Sunni population. So for ANY of this to be resolved, the sectarian intolerance has to be addressed. That's not an easy thing to solve when eye-for-an-eye and blood-for-blood is such an ingrained mentality.
US Position: The US position recognizes the actual problem. The plan was to arm and train moderate rebels who believed in this too. They would come to power, and bam, you have people in power that actually start practicing tolerance. The problem? These individuals are very few and far between. By far the most dominant rebel groups in Syria are the ISIS-like fundamentalists. They're letting the FSA (Free Syrian Army) do most of the damage against the Syrian government, and when the Syrian government collapses, they'll swoop in and wipe out the FSA.
The end result of the US's current policy? Mass genocide of the Alawites. Further mass migration of the population. Solidification of ISIS's position, and with that escalation of war in Iraq. And because the Iraqi Army struggles battling just a smaller portion of the ISIS military, we can expect that a full strength ISIS invasion of Iraq will result in full US military intervention. Awesome!
Russian Strategy: The only thing of interest in Syria to Russia is the access it gives them to the Mediterranean. Oh yeah! That and because they want to build an Oil/NG pipeline from Iran to Iraq and through Syria to be a competitor to Russia's dominant supply of NG to Europe. If Assad gets ejected, then the pipeline gets built, and if the pipeline gets built, then Russia has competition to their NG empire.
So What Good Comes Out of Russia's Strategy?
The Russian strategy does one thing that the US strategy does not; it protects the Alawites. Putin doesn't care whether the Alawites are all slaughtered, but he does recognize that it'll happen. The Russian strategy also does one thing better than the US strategy by taking on the real threat to the Syrian regime directly, and that's ISIS.
The end result of the Russian policy? Assad will likely stay in power, a mass genocide will be prevented (after a lot more people die), ISIS will be bludgeoned by a real military on the ground for a change, and sectarian intolerance will stay the norm. Since the true issue will never be properly addressed though, ISIS-like elements will survive.
What SHOULD the world policy be? In order for the Syrian situation to truly be resolved, this requires a hugely expensive, costly, but necessary multinational coalition involving the US, Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to invade and divide up the country just like we did to Nazi Germany.
1. Assad stays in power to oversee the transitional government and/or the government becomes much more representative of the populace to begin the process of eroding the significant amount of intolerance within the region.
2. The Syrian Army stays intact. Can't make the same mistake.
3. The rebels required to lay down their arms and is completely forgiven just like the US South was.
4. Coalition militaries stick around long enough to enforce cooperation and re-assimilation of warring populaces together.
5. ISIS is wiped out. Completely.
6. Education campaigns in cooperation with tribes and mosques so that tolerance and love is practiced more regularly.
Trillions of dollars spent when all that had to be practiced was love. Awesome...
Last edited:
MongGrel
Lifer
- Dec 3, 2013
- 38,466
- 3,067
- 121
MongGrel
Lifer
- Dec 3, 2013
- 38,466
- 3,067
- 121
I did my duty for 4 years in the Marines, and decades in support of all military in the private sector, like probably many on here have not. I don't want to send anyone like me in there for no reason.
Last edited:
MongGrel
Lifer
- Dec 3, 2013
- 38,466
- 3,067
- 121
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 385
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter