I would immediately resign because I don't meet the requirements to be President.

Nobody on this forum has any inside information regarding the conflict to make any sort of policy judgement. Its all talking points that make no difference one way or another.

Opinions here don't matter other than to rile people up with opposing views. Its all hindsight so this argument is pretty invalid as its easy to see what the current picture is without seeing what it was like at the time.

I would have supplied Assad with weapons and offered the support of US air forces to him in his fight against the Islamist rebels that Obama chose to support and supply instead. As a result of my wise decision there would have never been a large scale civil war in Syria as all jihadists would have been crushed in no time. Countless of lives would have been saved and Europe wouldn't have received a huge refugee wave. Quite possibly the UK would still be part of the European Union.

Nobody on this forum has any inside information regarding the conflict to make any sort of policy judgement. Its all talking points that make no difference one way or another.

By this time anybody who isn't a total fool should have realized that supporting any sort of rebel group against a secular dictator in Islamic world is a BAD idea. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. Syria... How many examples do we need?

ContentCreator wrote:

Nobody on this forum has any inside information regarding the conflict to make any sort of policy judgement. Its all talking points that make no difference one way or another.

What are you wanting to know that you think is not in the public domain: the color of Assad's underwear?

The Arab spring came to Syria maybe with the help of US, French or Saudi intelligence services - or maybe not, but it came. It looked to everyone back then like Assad wasn't going to last long. And to answer the OP, I can't say that I would have recommended anything different than the actions that Obama took, except for not promising action against chemical warfare when he had no intention of getting the US bogged down in another war in the ME. But that's just hindsight, I wouldn't have believed that Assad would continue with petty unproductive uses of chemical warfare either. It turned out to be a great talking point for the neocons though.

So now Russia and Iran have Syria. Good riddance I say. The US didn't cause that particular problem and the US has no reason to own the problem. Russia wants a deep water port in the Med, so let them have one. Also, Iran wants to exert some regional hegemony and there is no reason for the US to go to war to prevent that. Our only interest in the region is to disrupt the militant Islamic fundamentalists and prevent them from controlling territory as they once did in Afghanistan. Assad is not part of that problem.

As Obama has pointed out, the US has no compelling interests in the Levant / Mesopotamia. We are not the world's policeman.

It is a complicated situation with a lot of unsavory characters involved, so some prioritization is needed. Furthermore, this is all part of a larger conflict.

Defeating ISIS is priority number one. Assad is a disgusting dictator and he will have to go but that will have to wait.

A large scale commitment of American ground troops should be avoided, so rebel groups allied against ISIS must be protected and armed. I would not go straight to a no-fly zone over Syria but it should be an option on the table for the purpose of protecting civilians and anti-ISIS forces.

One end game in all this must be the creation and support of a free and independent Kurdistan carved out of norther Iraq. This should have been done twenty five years ago, but better late than never. The deal is that the US supports a free Kurdistan and in return the Kurds stop causing problems in Turkey. Turkey should be supported, grudgingly considering their recent Islamist slide, and lose no territory to a new Kurdish state. It should, of course, be made clear that further movement against democracy or towards Islamism could be met by pulling support or additional support to Greece and Kurdistan.

The US Navy should begin escorting ships through the Mandeb strait on a regular basis and America should step up materiel support to the Saudis in their fight against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The American government should also pressure Iran to cease their support for the Houthis.

Meanwhile in Europe, the US must move to fortify eastern European allies and support NATO. The reality is that Poland and other countries in the region must be made to be like West Germany years ago. Efforts to expand and tighten NATO should be emphasized.

None of this is going to get solved overnight, but the response has been too slow and indecisive thus far.

salttee wrote:

So now Russia and Iran have Syria. Good riddance I say.

That's not a reason why this isn't important. That's a reason why it is important.

salttee wrote:

Also, Iran wants to exert some regional hegemony and there is no reason for the US to go to war to prevent that.

It is important to keep the Saudis and the rest of the Middle East concerned enough to keep writing checks.

The u.s. government has no right to overthrow governments and install puppet governments. I hope both China & Russia stand against the usa / nato when it comes to syria.

BMI727 wrote:

----

I agree, apart from getting rid of Assad and the Eastern Europe part. Kurds definitely do deserve their own state, they seem to have a healthy sense of patriotism and dislike for radical Islam, no doubt they could build a more successful and democratic state in 10 years than Arabs could do in 50. But in Arab world disgusting dictators are needed in most areas because otherwise you'll have ISIS, democracy doesn't work if people aren't ready for it.

salttee wrote:

What are you wanting to know that you think is not in the public domain: the color of Assad's underwear?

The Arab spring came to Syria maybe with the help of US, French or Saudi intelligence services - or maybe not, but it came. It looked to everyone back then like Assad wasn't going to last long. And to answer the OP, I can't say that I would have recommended anything different than the actions that Obama took, except for not promising action against chemical warfare when he had no intention of getting the US bogged down in another war in the ME. But that's just hindsight, I wouldn't have believed that Assad would continue with petty unproductive uses of chemical warfare either. It turned out to be a great talking point for the neocons though.

So now Russia and Iran have Syria. Good riddance I say. The US didn't cause that particular problem and the US has no reason to own the problem. Russia wants a deep water port in the Med, so let them have one. Also, Iran wants to exert some regional hegemony and there is no reason for the US to go to war to prevent that. Our only interest in the region is to disrupt the militant Islamic fundamentalists and prevent them from controlling territory as they once did in Afghanistan. Assad is not part of that problem.

As Obama has pointed out, the US has no compelling interests in the Levant / Mesopotamia. We are not the world's policeman.

You and I agree. I think Obama making a "red line" was a mistake, but on the other hand, it did signal Russia that Obama was backed into a corner and if Syria didn't get rid of all its chemical weapons the USA would be forced into Syria. In the end 99% of all chemical weapons of Assad were destroyed.

The USA has invaded ME countries and has been screwed. We've spent 15+ years in trying to keep a country together. We've stayed out mainly in Syria, and it's still a shitstorm. I've always said the ME is a no win for outside agents.

BMI727 wrote:

The deal is that the US supports a free Kurdistan and in return the Kurds stop causing problems in Turkey. Turkey should be supported, grudgingly considering their recent Islamist slide, and lose no territory to a new Kurdish state. It should, of course, be made clear that further movement against democracy or towards Islamism could be met by pulling support or additional support to Greece and Kurdistan.

BMI...you do realize that if the USA creates or supports a free Kurdistan, the Kurd people already Turkish citizens will rebel right? Civil war breaks out in Turkey. If the US supports a Kurd movement Turkey will withdraw from NATO almost immediately, kick the US out of Incirlik air base, and align with Russia, right? You do know this, correct?

You think you can control 18 million Kurds?

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/public ... ion-turkey

pvjin wrote:

I agree, apart from getting rid of Assad and the Eastern Europe part. Kurds definitely do deserve their own state, they seem to have a healthy sense of patriotism and dislike for radical Islam, no doubt they could build a more successful and democratic state in 10 years than Arabs could do in 50. But in Arab world disgusting dictators are needed in most areas because otherwise you'll have ISIS, democracy doesn't work if people aren't ready for it.

We agree. There are no good guys. At the time I thought that staying out of it made most sense. I think most people did.

At the time there was no ISIS, either. Anyway, the solution to ISIS is going to be to cut their gravy train, and that will start in KSA.

DocLightning wrote:

Anyway, the solution to ISIS is going to be to cut their gravy train, and that will start in KSA.

I agree with this completely. ISIS won't last long without sponsorship from KSA and Qatar.

Actually I believe Obama is more or less handling Syria the best way possible. The biggest issue seems to be with the continuous supply of weapons to rebel groups. The moment these groups start losing (and they do fairly often either to Assad or ISIS) they immediately join forces with ISIS and provide them with the weapons we sent them. I know that if we don't send ground forces, using these guys are the only option but perhaps they should be made to combine to an actual entity that has a chance of facing ISIS rather than fighting in small groups and getting exterminated.

On a slightly unrelated note while I haven't been critical of Obama's handling of Syria, I am absolutely disgusted about his support for Saudi operations in Yemen.

BMI727 wrote:

Defeating ISIS is priority number one.

While this is true we need to keep in mind that this is really just treating the symptom. We do need to deny the militant Islamic fundamentalists a state or a protected territory where they can run training camps or accumulate arms, and also deny them the the prestige of having a territory; however, this really does nothing to address the root causes of the militant Islamic movement. That is a separate issue.

BMI727 wrote:

One end game in all this must be the creation and support of a free and independent Kurdistan carved out of norther Iraq.

That will not happen now and it probably won't happen in our lifetimes. Turkey is an absolutely critical ally for the west and the Kurdish resistance is their number one issue. They are not going to cut the eastern third of their country loose; no country gives up territory willingly and Turkey is especially entrenched on this subject; they see the loss of the eastern part as a strategic threat to their nation that is larger than just the Kurd problem.

If we (the west) were to alienate Turkey with demands that they placate the Kurds it might just drive them into Islamic extremism which would make Europe's militant Islamic problem explode into something quite unmanageable and unsolvable. Then there is the Russian aspect.

BMI727 wrote:

The US Navy should begin escorting ships through the Mandeb strait on a regular basis and America should step up materiel support to the Saudis in their fight against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The American government should also pressure Iran to cease their support for the Houthis.

You didn't learn a thing from Bush's gambit into Iraq or the US involvement in Vietnam did you? Those "rebels" are the front line of Iran's colonization of Yemen. They might as well be wearing Iranian army uniforms. If you want to get in a mixup there you might just as well go to the source in the beginning and invade Iran. But wait! don't they also have a border with Russia? Wouldn't Russia do the same for them as they did for the Vietnamese? This wouldn't be Iraq squared, it would be Iraq cubed. Besides Iran is doing us a favor by grinding down the KSA and all those Sunni militants. Just like Syria, let them have it, we don't want it anyway.

BMI727 wrote:

Meanwhile in Europe, the US must move to fortify eastern European allies and support NATO. The reality is that Poland and other countries in the region must be made to be like West Germany years ago. Efforts to expand and tighten NATO should be emphasized.

I can't really argue against this. Putin wants a renewal of the cold war, I think that we're in a good starting position. This time around it's just Russia; there's no Soviet Union. It won't take long and we will have 1989 all over again.

TheF15Ace wrote:

On a slightly unrelated note while I haven't been critical of Obama's handling of Syria, I am absolutely disgusted about his support for Saudi operations in Yemen.

My guess is that AIPAC made him an offer he couldn't resist in an election year.

By this time anybody who isn't a total fool should have realized that supporting any sort of rebel group against a secular dictator in Islamic world is a BAD idea. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. Syria... How many examples do we need?[/quote]

Below you have a tow hit on a Turkish tank in Syria killing all four on board. So that is NATO's largest army supplying weapons to Islamists who then shoot NATO's second largest army

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cl-1M1XV8k

one things for sure, on youtube exist all types of videos from all sides of the conflict. Going into battle with a tank? put a gopro on it. Hunting tanks? film yourself doing it. I've even seen videos spliced together showing the battle from both sides.

The Kurds may not get a homeland in Turkey but northern Iraq now under their control will most likely remain. If not, it will be destroyed by a massive invasion from the south - Iraq Sunni and Shia - and Turkey. It will be a civil war to end all civil wars, as I'm sure someone not Turkey will look to assist the Kurds, it may not be the USA, as they will continue to play politics, but others would be willing to give arms.

par13del wrote:

The Kurds may not get a homeland in Turkey but northern Iraq now under their control will most likely remain. If not, it will be destroyed by a massive invasion from the south - Iraq Sunni and Shia - and Turkey. It will be a civil war to end all civil wars, as I'm sure someone not Turkey will look to assist the Kurds, it may not be the USA, as they will continue to play politics, but others would be willing to give arms.

Granted, my comment isn't exactly about Syria, but I always thought Joe Biden's 2008 Presidential run, where he thought dividing Iraq into 3 separate states with proper oil sharing rights, and 1 national Iraq was an interesting idea. Not sure if that would work, or not.

pvjin wrote:

But in Arab world disgusting dictators are needed in most areas because otherwise you'll have ISIS, democracy doesn't work if people aren't ready for it.

I disagree as I do not subscribe to the inherent inferiority of certain races. And you can be a thug or you can be unfriendly to America, but if you're both we're gonna have a problem. Assad is a problem.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

BMI...you do realize that if the USA creates or supports a free Kurdistan, the Kurd people already Turkish citizens will rebel right?

I think that is far from a certainty. The premise of a free Kurdistan is that would have to be fully carved from Iraq and result in no loss of territory for Turkey. Kurds in Turkey would be faced with either moving or being Kurds in Turkey. Furthermore, the US should stipulate that Kurdistan not support any insurgency in Turkey and fully support Turks against Kurdish rebels in Turkey. This may require an American peacekeeping force along the border, but that is a small price to pay.

TheF15Ace wrote:

On a slightly unrelated note while I haven't been critical of Obama's handling of Syria, I am absolutely disgusted about his support for Saudi operations in Yemen.

I suppose you missed that the Houthis have attacked US Navy ships several times and successfully attacked an Emirati vessel in the last few weeks.

salttee wrote:

Turkey is an absolutely critical ally for the west and the Kurdish resistance is their number one issue. They are not going to cut the eastern third of their country loose; no country gives up territory willingly and Turkey is especially entrenched on this subject; they see the loss of the eastern part as a strategic threat to their nation that is larger than just the Kurd problem.

A free and independent Kurdistan does not pose an additional problem for Turkey, it helps solve an issue they already have.

salttee wrote:

Those "rebels" are the front line of Iran's colonization of Yemen.

And yet that has not stopped them from shooting at Americans.

salttee wrote:

They might as well be wearing Iranian army uniforms. If you want to get in a mixup there you might just as well go to the source in the beginning and invade Iran.

Tearing up the nuclear deal and threatening military force (or better, that of the Israelis) should absolutely not be off the table.

salttee wrote:

I can't really argue against this. Putin wants a renewal of the cold war, I think that we're in a good starting position. This time around it's just Russia; there's no Soviet Union. It won't take long and we will have 1989 all over again.

I'll add to that by saying that it should absolutely become American policy that a cyber attack may be met with kinetic retaliation.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Granted, my comment isn't exactly about Syria, but I always thought Joe Biden's 2008 Presidential run, where he thought dividing Iraq into 3 separate states with proper oil sharing rights, and 1 national Iraq was an interesting idea. Not sure if that would work, or not.

The borders of Iraq were pretty much made up anyway. It should really be at least two countries and maybe three.

BMI727 wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

On a slightly unrelated note while I haven't been critical of Obama's handling of Syria, I am absolutely disgusted about his support for Saudi operations in Yemen.

I suppose you missed that the Houthis have attacked US Navy ships several times and successfully attacked an Emirati vessel in the last few weeks.

I should have phased what I meant better. The Saudi's say their fighting only the Houthis but seem to have no problem deliberately targeting the civilian population as well. And there is that little problem of closing off the country so that aid cannot get through and tens of thousands of people are left to starve. So no I will not support the actions there.

As for targeting navy ships the Saudi coalition has been bombing them from the beginning of 2015 and we have been providing active support from the inception. You honestly expect no retaliation on military targets?

Spin it however you want. We should have stayed out of that one.

BMI727 wrote:

PacificBeach88 wrote:

BMI...you do realize that if the USA creates or supports a free Kurdistan, the Kurd people already Turkish citizens will rebel right?

I think that is far from a certainty. The premise of a free Kurdistan is that would have to be fully carved from Iraq and result in no loss of territory for Turkey. Kurds in Turkey would be faced with either moving or being Kurds in Turkey. Furthermore, the US should stipulate that Kurdistan not support any insurgency in Turkey and fully support Turks against Kurdish rebels in Turkey. This may require an American peacekeeping force along the border, but that is a small price to pay.

I think that is an absolute certainty. The Kurds want a Kurdistan, not a half a Kurdistan.

Kurdistan includes a big chunk of northern Iraq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan
A big chunk of eastern Turkey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Kurdistan
A significant piece of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Kurdistan
And more of Syria than Assad (or anyone who would replace him) is willing to give up.

There are about 35 million Kurds: 14.5 million in Turkey, 6 million in Iran, about 5 to 6 million in Iraq, and less than 2 million in Syria, which adds up to close to 28 million Kurds in Kurdistan or adjacent regions.

If the US decides to meddle in the region for the benefit of the Kurds we will be a destabilizing force against four currently existing nation states, we would essentially make ourselves the enemy of 150 million people.

What part of NO MORE LOST WARS - NO MORE VIETNAMS - NO MORE IRAQs, WE ARE NOT THE WORLD's POLICEMAN don't you understand?

If you want to piss away an American fortune and be a dogooder why not try and help Latin America with some of their problems?

TheF15Ace wrote:

The Saudi's say their fighting only the Houthis but seem to have no problem deliberately targeting the civilian population as well. And there is that little problem of closing off the country so that aid cannot get through and tens of thousands of people are left to starve. So no I will not support the actions there.

Support for the Saudis doesn't have to have no strings attached. That's part of the beauty of supplying other people to fight for what you want.

TheF15Ace wrote:

You honestly expect no retaliation on military targets?

The military has retaliated by striking Houthi targets in Yemen.

salttee wrote:

I think that is an absolute certainty. The Kurds want a Kurdistan, not a half a Kurdistan.

They're not going to get all of it, and while ISIS is the top priority, the potential fallout is the US strengthening support for Turkey.

That said, I think the Kurds can handle it. These people have been crapped on for decades and abandoned repeatedly by the Americans. We owe them one.

salttee wrote:

If the US decides to meddle in the region for the benefit of the Kurds we will be a destabilizing force against four currently existing nation states, we would essentially make ourselves the enemy of 150 million people.

First, you assume there is nothing that could be done to support those other states. Secondly, we only want two of those four to be stable anyway.

salttee wrote:

What part of NO MORE LOST WARS - NO MORE VIETNAMS - NO MORE IRAQs, WE ARE NOT THE WORLD's POLICEMAN don't you understand?

The part where that has been an utter failure since 1939. The part where stepping in for what is right freed Europe, freed Japan and freed half of Korea. That's what this is really about: the chessboard is there whether you like it or not so you better move the pieces around lest they end up in an arrangement that doesn't suit you. Nobody should be under the impression that the right choice will not have negative side effects.

BMI727 wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

The Saudi's say their fighting only the Houthis but seem to have no problem deliberately targeting the civilian population as well. And there is that little problem of closing off the country so that aid cannot get through and tens of thousands of people are left to starve. So no I will not support the actions there.

Support for the Saudis doesn't have to have no strings attached. That's part of the beauty of supplying other people to fight for what you want.

The strings may be there but we certainly aren't pulling them. Saudi is playing by it's own rules and we seem to have no problem sitting back and supplying the munitions for them to do it.

And you can be a thug or you can be unfriendly to America, but if you're both we're gonna have a problem. Assad is a problem.

Well, exactly that kind of thinking drove Iraq and Libya into chaos & gave us ISIS. So as an European whose country has suffered as a direct consequence of the chaos I must oppose that way of thinking. I don't want Syrian conflict to continue going on forever just because Uncle Sam doesn't like Assad, we don't have a giant Ocean between us and the conflict zone.

BMI727 wrote:

They're not going to get all of it, and while ISIS is the top priority, the potential fallout is the US strengthening support for Turkey.
That said, I think the Kurds can handle it. These people have been crapped on for decades and abandoned repeatedly by the Americans. We owe them one.

We owe ourselves and our children an end to these military sojourns into third world countries which pose no threat to the United States.
I'll give you a book to read (which I know you won't do) https://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/

Dude, I know who you are. You're the same person who crowed about bringing democracy to Vietnam, who had a better idea for Cambodia, who thought it a clever idea to support the Islamist nutjobs in Afghanistan in the 80s, who thought it briliant to supply both sides in the Iran / Iraq war and you were sure that getting rid of Saddam was a good idea that couldn't go wrong.

Now with the same lack of foresight, you want the US to meddle in another place where we are certain to fail, where we would again piss away a fortune, kill a lot of people and further sully the reputation of the US while undoubtedly creating new reasons for new future wars.

I take solace in the fact that your kind have become a dwindling minority in the United states.
You and your type have done more to destroy this nation than any single foreign dictator could ever hope to have done.

pvjin wrote:

And you can be a thug or you can be unfriendly to America, but if you're both we're gonna have a problem. Assad is a problem.

Well, exactly that kind of thinking drove Iraq and Libya into chaos & gave us ISIS. So as an European whose country has suffered as a direct consequence of the chaos I must oppose that way of thinking. I don't want Syrian conflict to continue going on forever just because Uncle Sam doesn't like Assad, we don't have a giant Ocean between us and the conflict zone.

Assad, the Kurds and IS are going to be fighting each other. Let them.

All these people who simply want war forget about Iraq and Vietnam and forget that Bush's Iraq war led to IS.

People are going to find ways to justify their horrific acts of violence. What would be better in the long term is education. But, that does not sell guns.

seb146 wrote:

pvjin wrote:

And you can be a thug or you can be unfriendly to America, but if you're both we're gonna have a problem. Assad is a problem.

Well, exactly that kind of thinking drove Iraq and Libya into chaos & gave us ISIS. So as an European whose country has suffered as a direct consequence of the chaos I must oppose that way of thinking. I don't want Syrian conflict to continue going on forever just because Uncle Sam doesn't like Assad, we don't have a giant Ocean between us and the conflict zone.

Assad, the Kurds and IS are going to be fighting each other. Let them.

All these people who simply want war forget about Iraq and Vietnam and forget that Bush's Iraq war led to IS.

People are going to find ways to justify their horrific acts of violence. What would be better in the long term is education. But, that does not sell guns.

Can never have a political thread without Seb blaming Bush about something!

jetblueguy22 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Well, exactly that kind of thinking drove Iraq and Libya into chaos & gave us ISIS. So as an European whose country has suffered as a direct consequence of the chaos I must oppose that way of thinking. I don't want Syrian conflict to continue going on forever just because Uncle Sam doesn't like Assad, we don't have a giant Ocean between us and the conflict zone.

Assad, the Kurds and IS are going to be fighting each other. Let them.

All these people who simply want war forget about Iraq and Vietnam and forget that Bush's Iraq war led to IS.

People are going to find ways to justify their horrific acts of violence. What would be better in the long term is education. But, that does not sell guns.

Can never have a political thread without Seb blaming Bush about something!

Oh, silly me... I keep forgetting that no one was in charge and nothing happened from January 2001 until January 2009....

The Americans can fight for as long as they want. Assad will never be defeated. Assad is here to stay. Do you think that the American Army is prepared to fight Hezbollah?

salttee wrote:

We owe ourselves and our children an end to these military sojourns into third world countries which pose no threat to the United States

ISIS posed no threat to France or Belgium either. Do you and others forget the lessons written in blood after only fifteen years? After all, it's only a destroyer in Yemen and not a real threat to the US...

salttee wrote:

You're the same person who crowed about bringing democracy to Vietnam

The lesson of Vietnam is that you must either be decisive or untouchable. For the situation in the Middle East now, the right answer is untouchable. Limit the exposure to a handful of intelligence types and special operators, there are other people to be in harm's way.

salttee wrote:

who thought it a clever idea to support the Islamist nutjobs in Afghanistan in the 80s

For as much dumb stuff as Jimmy Carter did, his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was right on the money. It is one of the master strokes of American post-WWII foreign policy. Intervening from afar to make sure the bad guys bleed is the right policy once again and in this case the bad guys are ISIS, the Assad regime, the Houthis and the Russians.

The narrative that the US support for the mujahideen against the Soviets kicked off a chain of events leading directly to 9/11 is folklore in which Osama Bin Laden is some sort of jihadi King Arthur.

seb146 wrote:

Assad, the Kurds and IS are going to be fighting each other. Let them.

...and make sure that the right groups win.

blacksoviet wrote:

The Americans can fight for as long as they want. Assad will never be defeated. Assad is here to stay.

The Americans should support the rebels such that the situation in Syria is as precarious as possible for Assad. The right policy is to keep the powder keg dry and the fuze lit so that Assad and the Russians must expend as many resources as possible to get what they want. Make it bloody and make it expensive.

BMI727 wrote:

salttee wrote:

We owe ourselves and our children an end to these military sojourns into third world countries which pose no threat to the United States

ISIS posed no threat to France or Belgium either. Do you and others forget the lessons written in blood after only fifteen years? After all, it's only a destroyer in Yemen and not a real threat to the US...

salttee wrote:

You're the same person who crowed about bringing democracy to Vietnam

The lesson of Vietnam is that you must either be decisive or untouchable. For the situation in the Middle East now, the right answer is untouchable. Limit the exposure to a handful of intelligence types and special operators, there are other people to be in harm's way.

salttee wrote:

who thought it a clever idea to support the Islamist nutjobs in Afghanistan in the 80s

For as much dumb stuff as Jimmy Carter did, his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was right on the money. It is one of the master strokes of American post-WWII foreign policy. Intervening from afar to make sure the bad guys bleed is the right policy once again and in this case the bad guys are ISIS, the Assad regime, the Houthis and the Russians.

The narrative that the US support for the mujahideen against the Soviets kicked off a chain of events leading directly to 9/11 is folklore in which Osama Bin Laden is some sort of jihadi King Arthur.

seb146 wrote:

Assad, the Kurds and IS are going to be fighting each other. Let them.

...and make sure that the right groups win.

blacksoviet wrote:

The Americans can fight for as long as they want. Assad will never be defeated. Assad is here to stay.

The Americans should support the rebels such that the situation in Syria is as precarious as possible for Assad. The right policy is to keep the powder keg dry and the fuze lit so that Assad and the Russians must expend as many resources as possible to get what they want. Make it bloody and make it expensive.

The Russians are prepared to spend as much money as necessary to preserve the Assad regime. The terrorists will never be able to overthrow Assad. If the United States wants to take out Assad, they will have to send ground troops into Syria to take Damascus. The American people will revolt. The American people will never support a ground war against Assad. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah will never allow the United States to topple Assad. It's just not gonna happen.

The best thing for the United States to do is to help the Russians and the Syrian Army defeat ISIS. Whether the US likes it or not, Assad is here to stay.

blacksoviet wrote:

The Russians are prepared to spend as much money as necessary to preserve the Assad regime.

America should absolutely call that bluff.

I bet you would have said the same thing about Afghanistan in 1979. Alas, in almost exactly twelve years the Soviets had not only lost Afghanistan but Soviet Union itself.

blacksoviet wrote:

The best thing for the United States to do is to help the Russians and the Syrian Army defeat ISIS.

The actual evidence shows that the Russians are actually doing next to nothing with regards to ISIS.

...and make sure that the right groups win.

What are the right groups? ISIS? Those who aren't ISIS but would prefer to kill religious minorities and homosexuals? Or those who would prefer to only jail said groups?

The Americans should support the rebels such that the situation in Syria is as precarious as possible for Assad. The right policy is to keep the powder keg dry and the fuze lit so that Assad and the Russians must expend as many resources as possible to get what they want. Make it bloody and make it expensive.

Never mind a couple of hundred or thousand dead Europeans as a result of the chaos that your policy is causing there?

If the United States keeps supporting terrorists in Syria I hope that policy will some day bite you back, like it did on 11th of September 2001.

pvjin wrote:

...and make sure that the right groups win.

What are the right groups? ISIS? Those who aren't ISIS but would prefer to kill religious minorities and homosexuals? Or those who would prefer to only jail said groups?

The Americans should support the rebels such that the situation in Syria is as precarious as possible for Assad. The right policy is to keep the powder keg dry and the fuze lit so that Assad and the Russians must expend as many resources as possible to get what they want. Make it bloody and make it expensive.

Never mind a couple of hundred or thousand dead Europeans as a result of the chaos that your policy is causing there?

If the United States keeps supporting terrorists in Syria I hope that policy will some day bite you back, like it did on 11th of September 2001.

This is all the fault of the American people, for allowing their minds to be controlled by the Zionists.

pvjin wrote:

What are the right groups?

Kurds (those fighting in Iraq/Syria, not Turkey), Syrian rebels and the Iraqi military.

pvjin wrote:

Never mind a couple of hundred or thousand dead Europeans as a result of the chaos that your policy is causing there?

Dead from what? A Russian invasion?

pvjin wrote:

If the United States keeps supporting terrorists in Syria I hope that policy will some day bite you back, like it did on 11th of September 2001

The idea that the American intervention in Afghanistan led to 9/11 is a fabrication. Certain elements have taken a couple real people's names and real places and stitched them into a tall tale to convey their ideas, regardless of historical accuracy. The CIA Agent of The Lake handed the Redeye to Osama and we were off...

It's just not true.

BMI727 wrote:

The idea that the American intervention in Afghanistan led to 9/11 is a fabrication. Certain elements have taken a couple real people's names and real places and stitched them into a tall tale to convey their ideas, regardless of historical accuracy. It's just not true.

pvjin isn't right about much, but he's right about that. In a way it was a joint Russian / US effort that militarized the Islamic Fundis. First, Russia invaded Afghanistan which gave Muslims a united call to arms, then the Americans came along and gave them better weapons along with training on tactics.

blacksoviet wrote:

BMI727 wrote:

salttee wrote:

We owe ourselves and our children an end to these military sojourns into third world countries which pose no threat to the United States

ISIS posed no threat to France or Belgium either. Do you and others forget the lessons written in blood after only fifteen years? After all, it's only a destroyer in Yemen and not a real threat to the US...

salttee wrote:

You're the same person who crowed about bringing democracy to Vietnam

The lesson of Vietnam is that you must either be decisive or untouchable. For the situation in the Middle East now, the right answer is untouchable. Limit the exposure to a handful of intelligence types and special operators, there are other people to be in harm's way.

salttee wrote:

who thought it a clever idea to support the Islamist nutjobs in Afghanistan in the 80s

For as much dumb stuff as Jimmy Carter did, his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was right on the money. It is one of the master strokes of American post-WWII foreign policy. Intervening from afar to make sure the bad guys bleed is the right policy once again and in this case the bad guys are ISIS, the Assad regime, the Houthis and the Russians.

The narrative that the US support for the mujahideen against the Soviets kicked off a chain of events leading directly to 9/11 is folklore in which Osama Bin Laden is some sort of jihadi King Arthur.

seb146 wrote:

Assad, the Kurds and IS are going to be fighting each other. Let them.

...and make sure that the right groups win.

blacksoviet wrote:

The Americans can fight for as long as they want. Assad will never be defeated. Assad is here to stay.

The Americans should support the rebels such that the situation in Syria is as precarious as possible for Assad. The right policy is to keep the powder keg dry and the fuze lit so that Assad and the Russians must expend as many resources as possible to get what they want. Make it bloody and make it expensive.

The Russians are prepared to spend as much money as necessary to preserve the Assad regime. The terrorists will never be able to overthrow Assad. If the United States wants to take out Assad, they will have to send ground troops into Syria to take Damascus. The American people will revolt. The American people will never support a ground war against Assad. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah will never allow the United States to topple Assad. It's just not gonna happen.

The best thing for the United States to do is to help the Russians and the Syrian Army defeat ISIS. Whether the US likes it or not, Assad is here to stay.

The United States is in a sticky situation. They do not want to help Russia but they also know what probably will happen if they force Assad from power. See: Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Afghanistan. Maybe they should just let Russia take it. Let them pour all their money and resources into an endless war. Many of us are tired of the United States being the world police.

BMI727 wrote:

pvjin wrote:

If the United States keeps supporting terrorists in Syria I hope that policy will some day bite you back, like it did on 11th of September 2001

The idea that the American intervention in Afghanistan led to 9/11 is a fabrication. Certain elements have taken a couple real people's names and real places and stitched them into a tall tale to convey their ideas, regardless of historical accuracy. The CIA Agent of The Lake handed the Redeye to Osama and we were off...

It's just not true.

The United States funded the Taliban, which fought against Soviet occupation. When the Soviets left, the Taliban took over and gave shelter to extremists like al-Qaida. The rest is history.

salttee wrote:

pvjin isn't right about much, but he's right about that.

He's not right. It's a modern piece of mythology.

salttee wrote:

In a way it was a joint Russian / US effort that militarized the Islamic Fundis.

Islamic fundamentalism existed before 1979 and would still exist regardless of American intervention in Afghanistan.

seb146 wrote:

Maybe they should just let Russia take it. Let them pour all their money and resources into an endless war.

Letting Russia take it would be a huge mistake. The US should support the rebels to ensure that the war is endless and that if the Russians want their thug in Syria and their Mediterranean port that it will cost them dearly in blood and money.

seb146 wrote:

The United States funded the Taliban, which fought against Soviet occupation.

The Taliban did not originate until well into the 1990s and was almost entirely a Pakistani creation. America had very little, if anything, to do with the Taliban gaining power in Afghanistan.

seb146 wrote:

When the Soviets left, the Taliban took over and gave shelter to extremists like al-Qaida. The rest is history.

In fact, far from causing 9/11, directly or otherwise, the American intervention on behalf of the mujahideen in the 1980s greatly assisted the execution of the early parts of the War on Terror to the point where Bin Laden narrowly escaped capture in late 2001.

BMI727 wrote:

salttee wrote:

pvjin isn't right about much, but he's right about that.

He's not right. It's a modern piece of mythology.

salttee wrote:

In a way it was a joint Russian / US effort that militarized the Islamic Fundis.

Islamic fundamentalism existed before 1979 and would still exist regardless of American intervention in Afghanistan.

seb146 wrote:

Maybe they should just let Russia take it. Let them pour all their money and resources into an endless war.

Letting Russia take it would be a huge mistake. The US should support the rebels to ensure that the war is endless and that if the Russians want their thug in Syria and their Mediterranean port that it will cost them dearly in blood and money.

seb146 wrote:

The United States funded the Taliban, which fought against Soviet occupation.

The Taliban did not originate until well into the 1990s and was almost entirely a Pakistani creation. America had very little, if anything, to do with the Taliban gaining power in Afghanistan.

seb146 wrote:

When the Soviets left, the Taliban took over and gave shelter to extremists like al-Qaida. The rest is history.

In fact, far from causing 9/11, directly or otherwise, the American intervention on behalf of the mujahideen in the 1980s greatly assisted the execution of the early parts of the War on Terror to the point where Bin Laden narrowly escaped capture in late 2001.

Keep telling yourself whatever lets you sleep at night. But rewriting history does a great disservice to everyone. OBL was determined to get the American Bin Sultan Air Base closed, too. That was the "last straw" for 9/11 by him. That American base in Saudi Arabia was closed shortly after the al-Qaida attack.

seb146 wrote:

Keep telling yourself whatever lets you sleep at night. But rewriting history does a great disservice to everyone.

It appears that you are misunderstanding. What I posted are the actual facts regarding what transpired in that region of the world. Your version is a revisionist urban legend.

The characterization of Operation Cyclone that you (and to be fair many others) present is no different than how the real St. Nicholas became evolved into Santa Claus as a way for parents to get their kids to behave around the holidays.

seb146 wrote:

That American base in Saudi Arabia was closed shortly after the al-Qaida attack.

It was closed in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq, so a presence in Saudi Arabia to prevent (more) Iraqi aggression was no longer necessary.

BMI727 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Keep telling yourself whatever lets you sleep at night. But rewriting history does a great disservice to everyone.

It appears that you are misunderstanding. What I posted are the actual facts regarding what transpired in that region of the world. Your version is a revisionist urban legend.

The characterization of Operation Cyclone that you (and to be fair many others) present is no different than how the real St. Nicholas became evolved into Santa Claus as a way for parents to get their kids to behave around the holidays.

seb146 wrote:

That American base in Saudi Arabia was closed shortly after the al-Qaida attack.

It was closed in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq, so a presence in Saudi Arabia to prevent (more) Iraqi aggression was no longer necessary.

You keep talking but posting no links.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-afghan ... 2U0PA?il=0

Read the second paragraph.

Also, the same administration that said "we do not negotiate with terrorists" caved to terrorist demands. Regardless of the year. Republicans caved.

The basic fault is to think that US policy could influence the region. The lines that have formed within the conflict are hundreds of years old and they fought before the US even existed. It is stupid to think that you can bring democracy and freedom to the region, it is equally stupid to think that the US could have influenced the uprising against Assad. You just need to look at the basic data for those countries. The population grows quickly, the resources can not support that size of population, the societies can not support such a big population. It is a male dominated society and you have a large number of young males without any prospect of living a positive life. They have no job, little education, no money to afford the wedding of a wife and there are more males than females in the relevant age group anyway. Those conflicts remove a part of those young males from the society.