Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Libya not Syria.

Two failed secretary of states.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/01/politics/kerry-audio-recording-syria/index.html

Places like Libya and Syria are a no win situation for any administration. Limited use of force (jet and drone strikes) are seen as ineffectual and committing ground forces is seen as a waste of American/Allied lives. They propped up dictatorial regimes for decades and now it's seen as undemocratic meddling yet every regime that has fallen has been replaced by either completely ineffectual democracies or has descended into sectarian tribalism.

In Syria you've not got the ridiculous situation of US planes bombing ISIS targets from the same air bases where Turkey is bombing groups fighting against ISIS. A bombing coalition between the US and Russia where Russia are bombing ISIS and other anti Assad forces but the US are bombing ISIS to try and help the other anti Assad forces. Then you've got Iran sending in commanders to help organise the Iraq forces to fight ISIS but also sending Hezbollah in to fight ISIS whom the US have given air support to despite listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. All this without mentioning who's supporting Al Qaeda, Nusra front etc.

Frankly, if there was one side to pick it'd be these guys

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava

The State Department needs to stop getting involved. This is just bullshit man. They are doing this to further terrorism and spread it. Look at everything these idiots have done. All they do is worsen the problem.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The State Department needs to stop getting involved. This is just bullshit man. They are doing this to further terrorism and spread it. Look at everything these idiots have done. All they do is worsen the problem.

Like I said in a previous thread. There's only so many times you can leave a country in a complete shambles before it becomes obvious that the aim of the interventions IS to leave them in shambles. If that is the aim then there can only be two reasons. To make it easier to manipulate the ineffectual government that takes over in order to exploit resources (as in Iraq) or to concentrate terrorism in a more limited area rather than have them fan out across the globe (like ISIS calling for fighters to come to Iraq and Syria pulls Islamic extremists out of western countries (to an extent)

The second aim is more difficult to measure whether it works or not as would those people have committed terrorist acts if they had never travelled to Syria and Iraq and what % of them were killed or haven't returned to their country of origin and if they have returned are those more capable of carrying out atrocities than before they left (as you would assume if they're getting training while there)

Originally posted by jaden101
Like I said in a previous thread. There's only so many times you can leave a country in a complete shambles before it becomes obvious that the aim of the interventions IS to leave them in shambles. If that is the aim then there can only be two reasons. To make it easier to manipulate the ineffectual government that takes over in order to exploit resources (as in Iraq) or to concentrate terrorism in a more limited area rather than have them fan out across the globe (like ISIS calling for fighters to come to Iraq and Syria pulls Islamic extremists out of western countries (to an extent)

The second aim is more difficult to measure whether it works or not as would those people have committed terrorist acts if they had never travelled to Syria and Iraq and what % of them were killed or haven't returned to their country of origin and if they have returned are those more capable of carrying out atrocities than before they left (as you would assume if they're getting training while there)

Never looked at it that way

Originally posted by jaden101
Like I said in a previous thread. There's only so many times you can leave a country in a complete shambles before it becomes obvious that the aim of the interventions IS to leave them in shambles. If that is the aim then there can only be two reasons. To make it easier to manipulate the ineffectual government that takes over in order to exploit resources (as in Iraq) or to concentrate terrorism in a more limited area rather than have them fan out across the globe (like ISIS calling for fighters to come to Iraq and Syria pulls Islamic extremists out of western countries (to an extent)

The second aim is more difficult to measure whether it works or not as would those people have committed terrorist acts if they had never travelled to Syria and Iraq and what % of them were killed or haven't returned to their country of origin and if they have returned are those more capable of carrying out atrocities than before they left (as you would assume if they're getting training while there)

Dont you think if we had done nothing we would have been better off?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Dont you think if we had done nothing we would have been better off?

I now think that about Iraq in 2003 despite being for the war and nothing happens in isolation. It was the trigger for the destabilisation of a huge part if the region.

As for some of the rest of the Arab spring countries it's more difficult to say. If we'd left Libya alone and Ghadaffi purged the coup you'd be looking at massive genocide, same in Egypt. Perhaps not so much in Tunisia though. Then again if those failed then perhaps the people in Syria would never have attempted to oust Assad in which case that whole area would be in better shape.

It seems we are always looking st the next mass genocide to stop. And we end up stopping it for a short time. Then it starts again. Like what ISIS is doing now.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It seems we are always looking st the next mass genocide to stop. And we end up stopping it for a short time. Then it starts again. Like what ISIS is doing now.

Keep in mind that Assad's forces have killed a lot more civilians than ISIS have.

Therein lies the problem. Getting involved typically means helping one or the other and they're both massive cvnts

So what should we do?

DON'T GET INVOLVED.

Stop overthrowing governments.

This isn't the obvious solution?

Apparently you can't follow the conversation. Just stay out of it.

You must be confused.

I am not surprised.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So what should we do?

The only groups in the area worth helping that I know of are the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Ghosts of the Desert.

That means reigning in Turkey and influencing Russia.

If we can get to a situation where they and Assad are the two main powers left then there's a chance for a negotiated solution.

Originally posted by krisblaze
You must be confused.

I am not surprised.

Did your aunt change the locks on you again, is this why you are so mad?

Originally posted by jaden101
The only groups in the area worth helping that I know of are the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Ghosts of the Desert.

That means reigning in Turkey and influencing Russia.

If we can get to a situation where they and Assad are the two main powers left then there's a chance for a negotiated solution.

It seems like right now besides an act of God or an assassination there is going to be no way to take Assad down with Russian and Iranian backing.

There would be no one dumb enough to challenge Assad at this point besides possibly Hillary.

She is literally dying to go to war with Russia.

If Hilary goes to war with Russia I guess she'd need to find someone else to give uranium to.

She already has threatened war with them over "hacking", exactly 1 month ago.

"As president I will treat a cyber attack like any other attack, we will ready with serious political, economic and military response.

Yet none of her supporters even care.

k4aIIpCDsLU

Okay so Trump is the crazy one who we wouldn't want with access to nukes, but we DO want someone willing to consider a military response over getting hacked.

Posturing is all just part of the diplomatic game. Overt public displays via the media and entirely different messages via back channels.

Originally posted by jaden101
Posturing is all just part of the diplomatic game. Overt public displays via the media and entirely different messages via back channels.

What would happen if Trump said the exact same thing?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What would happen if Trump said the exact same thing?

At the moment it wouldn't make any difference as he's not in political power.

In terms of how people react to it, it'd be exactly the same only the opposite side of the political spectrum.

In terms of government if he's elected it'll more likely depend on who Trump appoints to his cabinet and whether they're better and playing the game.

If Trump can break the ridiculous media notion that Putin and Russia are "the enemy" then there's no reason a lot cannot be accomplished in both their national interests.

I agree he needs to break that stupid idea.

What she said didn't even make the five o'clock news though, really though, you have to admit if trump threatened war with someone the media go nuclear.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I agree he needs to break that stupid idea.

What she said didn't even make the five o'clock news though, really though, you have to admit if trump threatened war with someone the media go nuclear.

You're better placed to judge that than me. We only get a few US news channels over here and I rarely watch them. I rarely watch our news channels either.

I promise you what I said is true, if he threatened war with anyone, even Russia, the media and the rinos and democrats would go nuclear. You would see a complete ape shit moment in American Politics.

In 2004 Kerry argued for more force in Iraq and argued Bush was losing. I know at the time he was seen as a Vietnam hippy from Massachusettes but I think hes right. The funding of rebels caused Isis and this whole cluster**** is only getting worse. At this point i dont think it matters what could have been, but what the plan is.

More force against Assad or whatever Trumps gonna do. Hmmmm.