US Switching Tactics in Syria

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34509793

So, having recently abandoned their efforts to train new rebels, the Obama administration is now switching tactics. Now they seem to have decided it's better to simply give weapons and ammunition to rebels already fighting in Syria. In addition to being more cost effective and quicker, this new strategy shows that America has come around to the fact that there are no outright "good guys" in this war, only relatively less extreme, less homicidal guys, and we can either back them, come to terms with a murderous regime that all the Sunni Arab world despises, or give up on the country completely.

Time-Immemorial
Cold War 2.0

Bentley
Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34509793

So, having recently abandoned their efforts to train new rebels, the Obama administration is now switching tactics. Now they seem to have decided it's better to simply give weapons and ammunition to rebels already fighting in Syria. In addition to being more cost effective and quicker, this new strategy shows that America has come around to the fact that there are no outright "good guys" in this war, only relatively less extreme, less homicidal guys, and we can either back them, come to terms with a murderous regime that all the Sunni Arab world despises, or give up on the country completely.

I'm disappointed in this development, it seems that the US has sided with Russia when it comes to Bashar at least implicitly.

I hope we hear more on this in the next few weeks.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Bentley
I'm disappointed in this development, it seems that the US has sided with Russia when it comes to Bashar at least implicitly.

I hope we hear more on this in the next few weeks.
I think Bashar Al-Assad has been on the back burner, and the recent moves by Russia have shown the Americans that Putin cares about Syria a lot more than we do, and he'll be prepared to do a lot more for it.

With regards to Al-Assad, the question is if actively deposing him is worth risking direct confrontation with Russia. Very few people would say yes to that.

I think they do need to be more forceful about trying to dissuade Russia from attacking Western-backed rebels directly. I'm not sure how to go about that, but dropping a hint that we might "accidentally" start bombing regime targets if Russia doesn't dial back might help, or might make the situation much worse.

Time-Immemorial
Obama's gotten us out of one war, to get us into another one.

Robtard
LoL @ the ODS.

Arming allies, even loose ones isn't really getting the US into a war. It's just something the US does and has done.

Time-Immemorial
I said Cold War, or can you not read,

CAAH.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I said Cold War, or can you not read,

CAAH.

I can read:

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama's gotten us out of one war, to get us into another one.

Despite your faulty claims here, you said "into another one (ie war)".

Your ODS seems really high right now.

Bentley

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
I can read:



Despite your faulty claims here, you said "into another war".

Yes a cold war is a war.

CAAH.

Prof. T.C McAbe
Yeah sure, the refugees are happy as hell that even more weapons are in their country to kill the family members still there, let's not pretend that the IS won't get their hands on it, one way or another. Europe can handle all of the refugees, what does the US Government care if people die or not.

Tzeentch
I'm okay with this. The pros are that we're getting our hands a lot less dirty, while the con is that once these groups get their assholes plowed by ISIS, all those weapons are going to fall into their hands. But who cares.

I'm staunchly of the opinion that if Putin wants to play games in the ME, we should let him. I've had enough of America being World Police, and as far as Assad, **** him. As long as Saudi Arabia is one of our largest allies, I really don't give a **** about how "evil" this dude is. Morality has no place in global politics, unfortunately.

Time-Immemorial
" I really don't give a **** about how "evil" this dude is."

So you don't care about him causing genocide?

Are the Saudi's killing their own people? Or are you just mad about how they treat women?

Prof. T.C McAbe
No offense guys but one thing that bothers me is the way such discussions go. Almost everyone here just views it from a political, strategical or economical point of view and no one gives a damn about the humans, the civilians, that die. In my free time I work in a refugee shelter and it's just sad to see that no one really cares what happens to them as long as the interests of their countries are enforced.

One should also try once to imagine what he/she would feel if they would live in that country, see their sister raped and killed, fleeing from the torture to another country, never knowing if one makes it and if they won't be just send back to the hell they came from.

How can it be right to support aynthing that makes this hell worse?

Take Irak for example. I talked to an iraki refugee who is here since over 2 years, he says it's worse then before, the whole war was just a way to get the oil and not help the people.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
How can it be right to support aynthing that makes this hell worse? Because literally every single action that could realistically be taken is going to make the situation worse from a humanist perspective. You're making the mistake of thinking that my commentary is based on what I believe is ideal versus what I believe is the preferable alternative among the realistic scenarios.

EDIT- I'd like to point out that appeals to moraltiy is partially responsible for this situation in the first place. It was all well and good to cheer for humanity and freedom and democracy when we were deposing Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi, but in hindsight all three of those decisions ended up resulting in even more blood-shed.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Are the Saudi's killing their own people? Yes, you autist. They're one of the worst human rights violators in the world as well as one of the largest funders of terrorism in the world.

Time-Immemorial
Yet you want Iran to get nukes, who are the lead sponser of terrorism in the world.

Appears you care more about women's rights in Saudi, then dead people in Syria.

Shamefully really considering your girl Hilary just took a bunch of money from the Saudi's and pays her female staffers less their male counterparts yet you dont care about that when it pertains to your hildog.

CAAS

Prof. T.C McAbe
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Because literally every single action that could realistically be taken is going to make the situation worse from a humanist perspective. You're making the mistake of thinking that my commentary is based on what I believe is ideal versus what I believe is the preferable alternative among the realistic scenarios.

EDIT- I'd like to point out that appeals to moraltiy is partially responsible for this situation in the first place. It was all well and good to cheer for humanity and freedom and democracy when we were deposing Saddam, Assad and Ghadaffi, but in hindsight all three of those decisions ended up resulting in even more blood-shed.



I agree with this. To put it mildly, the ideals and moral appeal of the western world isn't the "right" one for everyone. Different cultures have different opinions and should never be forced to life to the rules of others. Our understanding of freedom, deomcracy itself and humanity isn't the way everyone on this planet wants to and should live. So live and let live, to each his/her own.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yet you want Iran to get nukesNo, I'm just intelligent enough to realize that short of going to war with them, there is no way of preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons indefinitely.

The irony of your retardation here is that you're trying to make an appeal for refugees, yet you explicitly stated in our last discussion on this matter that military strikes on Iran is on the table if that's what it takes to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons- thus refugees and dead civilians obviously doesn't bother you if its for a cause you support.

It's amazing that you can be this stupid, yet still be alive. The odds are almost certainly in favor of you getting hit by a car or drowning by staring up at the rain with your mouth open for too long, or something.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
I agree with this. To put it mildly, the ideals and moral appeal of the western world isn't the "right" one for everyone. Different cultures have different opinions and should never be forced to life to the rules of others. Our understanding of freedom, deomcracy itself and humanity isn't the way everyone on this planet wants to and should live. So live and let live, to each his/her own. Yeah, unforeseen consequences are the spookiest thing. Every action we take in these countries sends a ripple effect through the entire region. Frankly at this point I just think western intervention can only do more harm than good, for both sides of the fence. Thousands of American soldiers and millions of Iraquis and Afghanis have died in the War on Terror, but frankly the world isn't a whole lot safer to show for it.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Tzeentch
No, I'm just intelligent enough to realize that short of going to war with them, there is no way of preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons indefinitely.

The irony of your retardation here is that you're trying to make an appeal for refugees, yet you explicitly stated in our last discussion on this matter that military strikes on Iran is on the table if that's what it takes to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons- this refugees and dead civilians obviously doesn't bother you if its for a cause you support.

It's amazing that someone as stupid as yourself hasn't accidentally killed himself yet by staring up at the rain with your mouth open for too long or something.

So a small targeted conventional war now is more radical and bad then nuclear war in the future, interesting, and completely retarded. I can tell I struck a nerve of your bullshit and now you have started personal attacks to compensate for your double standard.

The time to strike Iran is now before they get nukes, sorry you can't see simple truths.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So a small targeted conventional war now is more radical and bad then nuclear war in the future So then you admit that there are situations in which civilian deaths are inevitable because attempting to prevent them would result in a worse situation later. Thus your posts attempting to attack me in this thread have basically just been bullshit.

Kill yourself.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Tzeentch
So then you admit that there are situations in which civilian deaths are inevitable because attempting to prevent them would result in a worse situation later. Thus your posts attempting to attack me in this thread have basically just been bullshit.



So you are ok with Hilary taking money from them to help her, but you don't like them. I have never seen you say a word about it.

Prof. T.C McAbe
I saw an interesting interview from on of our german journalists with Ahmadinedschad, he asked him only stuff about the nuclear weapons and the answers Ahmadinedschad provided were pretty accurate, i think it was 2012 First, during this time Israel, a country with nuclear weapons, threated to bomb Iran with their "nuclear" weapons if they don't allow the NPT commite access to all military facilities, which is against the NPT contract. Iran gives the inspectors access to all nuclear facilities to see that there are no weapons made, also there are cameras that tape everything 24/7 going on there. Now he can't allow them access to every military facility as no country would do that, because then they would be more or less defensless against an invasion and to protect itself is the right of every country. Further he asked how many wars of aggression the iran started in the last hundred years and how many the other western countries started? The journalist wasn't really expecting questions so he ignored them and asked why he threatened to use his military against israel if israel starts to bomb the Iran. He just asked what Germany or any other country would do if they would be attacked, isn't it natural to defend itself? The most interesting part was the reasoning of him. How can he prove that he doesn't build nuclear weapons, how to prove a negative? He gives access to all valid facilities and goes by the contract, but all he gets is mistrust and sanctions. If he says they don't build them and if he bows to the rules of the contract, people should believe it.

This made me think

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you are ok with Hilary taking money from them to help her, but you don't like them. I have never seen you say a word about it. Might that be because it has nothing to do with this thread, or any of the threads I've participated in?

I'm not even a fan of Hillary. She might be preferable to any of the Republican nominees, but she's still a snake in the grass.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Might that be because it has nothing to do with this thread, or any of the threads I've participated in?

I'm not even a fan of Hillary.

So then why do you hate the Saudi's so much, I assure you Syria is worse.

Lucius
You get rid of Assad... then what?

If Obama is really into doing something about Syria, we should just join up with Russia in helping out wipe out the rebels, and then get Assad back in charge. Is Assad an evil bastard? Why yes he is. Who cares? The only decent people in the region seem to be the Kurds, but they aren't in a position to bring order.

Besides, we do business with the Saudis, and the Saudis are filthy savages who still have laws on the books mandating execution for the crime of "Witchcraft."

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Lucius
You get rid of Assad... then what?

If Obama is really into doing something about Syria, we should just join up with Russia in helping out wipe out the rebels, and then get Assad back in charge. Is Assad an evil bastard? Why yes he is. Who cares? The only decent people in the region seem to be the Kurds, but they aren't in a position to bring order.

Besides, we do business with the Saudis, and the Saudis are filthy savages who still have laws on the books mandating execution for the crime of "Witchcraft."

So why do we accept people like Sadam and Assad killing off his own people and then get mad we we do something about it?

Prof. T.C McAbe
Originally posted by Lucius
You get rid of Assad... then what?

If Obama is really into doing something about Syria, we should just join up with Russia in helping out wipe out the rebels, and then get Assad back in charge. Is Assad an evil bastard? Why yes he is. Who cares? The only decent people in the region seem to be the Kurds, but they aren't in a position to bring order.

Besides, we do business with the Saudis, and the Saudis are filthy savages who still have laws on the books mandating execution for the crime of "Witchcraft."

thumb up

Every change has to come from the inside and never from the outside, else it won't last and won't be an real change but opression.

Bentley
Originally posted by Lucius
You get rid of Assad... then what?

If Obama is really into doing something about Syria, we should just join up with Russia in helping out wipe out the rebels, and then get Assad back in charge. Is Assad an evil bastard? Why yes he is. Who cares? The only decent people in the region seem to be the Kurds, but they aren't in a position to bring order.

This is playing right in Assad's hand. Why aren't there more decent people in the region? He killed them.

A transition government shouldn't be provided by Obama or Putin, but supported by Syria's neighbors and allowed to have a presence in the regions. Most refugees are in neighboring countries so it makes the most sense for them to support establishing a decent government.

Sadly Turkey has it's hands full right now.

FinalAnswer
Libya and Syria would both be better off if the West had kept their fingers out of other people's business though, tbh. Intervention with the purpose of taking down a country's government has always left things worse, so I'm not exactly sure why leaders keep trying to do it.

Bentley
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Libya and Syria would both be better off if the West had kept their fingers out of other people's business though, tbh. Intervention with the purpose of taking down a country's government has always left things worse, so I'm not exactly sure why leaders keep trying to do it.

The current ISIS crisis came to happen as both a problem with intervention and lack of intervention. I agree that just destroying a government has proved to be a mistake more often than not, but absolute lack of intervention in general carries it's own problems.

Tzeentch
Originally posted by Bentley
A transition government shouldn't be provided by Obama or Putin, but supported by Syria's neighbors and allowed to have a presence in the regions. Most refugees are in neighboring countries so it makes the most sense for them to support establishing a decent government. No one has asserted that the Assad regime should remain un-deposed, the train of thought is that it shouldn't be western nations doing the deposing. If the other countries in the ME want to work together and depose Assad, that's their business.

FinalAnswer
Originally posted by Bentley
The current ISIS crisis came to happen as both a problem with intervention and lack of intervention. I agree that just destroying a government has proved to be a mistake more often than not, but absolute lack of intervention in general carries it's own problems.

ISIS would not be a thing if Syria and Iraq were not in the states that they're in, which is directly because of western intervention.

Bentley
Originally posted by Tzeentch
No one has asserted that the Assad regime should remain un-deposed, the train of thought is that it shouldn't be western nations doing the deposing. If the other countries in the ME want to work together and depose Assad, that's their business.

Russia's intervention isn't really pushing them to get their hands dirty. Among those countries you'll find many buying cheap resources to ISIS themselves.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
ISIS would not be a thing if Syria and Iraq were not in the states that they're in, which is directly because of western intervention.

ISIS is in Syria because Assad was allowed to thrive, that's the exact opposite of intervention.

FinalAnswer
ISIS is in Syria because Assad no longer has control of the country and the West has been giving rebel groups there arms in the hopes of ousting him. Along with the fact that Syria neighbors an extremely destabilized country that is a fertile breeding ground for scum like them.

I mean, you are aware that ISIS has its origins in the invasion of Iraq, yes?

Bentley
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
ISIS is in Syria because Assad no longer has control of the country and the West has been giving rebel groups there arms in the hopes of ousting him. Along with the fact that Syria neighbors an extremely destabilized country that is a fertile breeding ground for scum like them.

Assad had no control because the Syrians wanted him out, then he demonized his opposition by mixing them up with ISIS, building them up as a threat in order to stay in power. And with Putin's help, his plan is going on perfectly. Why? Because we refused to interfere when it was the most sensible choice as Assad gased his population.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
I mean, you are aware that ISIS has its origins in the invasion of Iraq, yes?

But they wouldn't be the same problem if their sights were on a single country, their rise has been happening thanks to the lack on consensus on attacking both in Iraq and Syria.

psmith81992
I love it when people attempt to erroneously point out that ISIS was a direct result of our intervention in Iraq.

Bentley
Originally posted by psmith81992
I love it when people attempt to erroneously point out that ISIS was a direct result of our intervention in Iraq.

More like for the lack of intervention. At least in Iraq, things terribly crumbled after the US army left the grounds.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
ISIS is in Syria because Assad no longer has control of the country and the West has been giving rebel groups there arms in the hopes of ousting him. Along with the fact that Syria neighbors an extremely destabilized country that is a fertile breeding ground for scum like them.

I mean, you are aware that ISIS has its origins in the invasion of Iraq, yes?
Let me give you a scenario. In 2011, when the protesters first begin to demand for change, Al-Assad has two choices: 1) accept their demands and step down or 2) start murdering them.

In our history, he of course chose (2), but if he'd chosen (1) right then, before anyone was fighting and when Syria's military was still united and there wasn't a collapse of order, ISIS would have never gained a foothold in Syria. ISIS is 100% the fault of Bashar Al-Assad. You can't blame it on "Western support" for the rebels because in practical terms there literally was none until the last year or so after ISIS already became a huge threat.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.