The US seems keener to strike at Syria's Assad than it does to destroy Isis

[Cybran]

Obviously. The Kurds are tools of the Israelis, so the US unfortunately assists them.

http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conf...rorists-484676

Israel doesn't use Kurds. They use Al Qaeda. There are pictures of wounded Al Qaeda fighters treated inside Israel and shaking hands with netenyahu.

Again, the people responsible for 9/11 get money and support from us allies.

[Cybran]

Not at this point. It is in our best interest to mold a desirable outcome for the US and the West.

Right now that means doing pretty much what we're doing. It's been cheap for the US so far so no reason that we can't carry on for some time to come.

Sucks that turkey just announced its offensive against the Kurds with the blessing of Russia. Now you will have to shoot down NATO planes to achieve your goals.

[Skroe]

Why were we involved in the first place?

You mean during the Cold War? Because during the Nasser-era across the broader Arab world, while Nasser (and the United Arab Republic, and it's allies) were broadly "unaligned", they were much closer to the Soviet orbit. In fact a key goal of the Camp David peace process under Carter, and a key strategic triumph of the US in the 1980s, was to pull Egypt and as many Arab countries out of Soviet orbit as possible.

Why? Geography. In the 1940s and 1950s, Communism bread virulently, with the USSR and China being patient zero. That spread was halted in the 1960s and 1970s, and reversed in the 1980s and 1990s.


It's no coincidence that:

-In the 1950s the chief geopolitical focus region was Europe and the Koreas
-In the 1960s it was South East Asia and Latin America
-In the late 1960s and 1970s it became the Middle East

As it represents the "front" in the struggle against communism.

Containment wouldn't have worked if the Middle East stayed in the Soviet sphere. It would have forced Western forces to go around Africa or South America to resupply forces in Asia-Pacific. It would have given the soviet's military access to encircle Europe.

That's why we meddled in the region. In other words, very good reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

Sucks that turkey just announced its offensive against the Kurds with the blessing of Russia. Now you will have to shoot down NATO planes to achieve your goals.

You mean like the last 8 times they did that? Let me know when something new happens on this front.

My missile defense radar done yet, Bulgarian?

[Cybran]

The Kurds wasted their best chance for semi autonomy last year when they fell for Saudi and American lies . Now they will get stomped and the last American puppet will be out of the peace talks.


Game over, man.

[satimy]

About the only reason the west is sucking up to Turkey is because of their geographical position. There is only one way out of the black sea towards the Mediterranean for Russias warm water naval access, and that goes right by Istanbul.

In other regards, the turks are no better than the kurds with how Turkey has been treating the kurds.

Im not implying they are, but they are in NATO and the Kurds dont even have a nation.

[Ghostpanther]

I've been hoping he would give all the decision making over to Mattis and McMaster. I'm sure I'm not the only one hoping this.

Voters don't care about foreign affairs and the only time voters notice is if you screw foreign affairs up really bad and start a war or something.

Yep. He is doing what any President should do. Same as what Lincoln and FDR did.

[Kellhound]

We're attacking Syria for the same reason we attacked Iraq...that sweet, sweet black gold.

But hey....if some of you want to believe that we're doing it to help the innocent Syrian people, then you'll believe that a reality tv "star" could become the pres.....oh wait.

Look at how much oil the US gets from Syria, and try again.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, Al-Qaeda are the big threat now, along with returning foreign fighters.

Iran is the biggest threat now.

[Theodarzna]

That's where i stand. And not just in Syria, but throughout the world. But, right now, our livelihood is resting on the backs of the people we destroy.

Ah, we are addicted to throwing people into the Moloch to keep the crops growing, fantastic.

[Deleted]

Iran is the biggest threat now.

In neocon imagination land.

[Independent voter]

Back in the colonial days the colonials would take over a place and pick the smallest weakest tribe and give that weak tribe all the power and the jobs. Why did the colonials pick the weakest tribe? Because the weak tribe would need the colonials for protection and they weren't likely to overthrow the colonials.

In Syria's case the weakest tribe the colonial's picked was Assad's Alawite people who are Shiites, 80% of the Syria being Sunni.

The French were the colonial powers in Syria's case.

The French felt sorry for Syria and offered to educate some of Syria's elite. These Syrian elite formed the Baathist party and vowed to overthrow the colonialists. Saddam was a Baathist as is Assad. Today the Baathist party makes up the administrative wing of ISIS.

Oh yeah, when the colonialists abandoned Assad how did Assad's dad stay in power with 80% of Syria being Sunni? He terrorized the population.

[Queen of Hamsters]

It's not like Assad hasn't deserved what he's getting.

[Realitytrembles]

I've been hoping he would give all the decision making over to Mattis and McMaster. I'm sure I'm not the only one hoping this.

Voters don't care about foreign affairs and the only time voters notice is if you screw foreign affairs up really bad and start a war or something.

I'd be down for a triumvirate of Mattis/Tillerson/McMaster being given full responsibility for foreign policy by Trump's order.

[Skroe]

I think this is a ignorant take on history, if you just look at Zaire. Lomumba needed an ally, and literally asked the US to be an ally. The US refused because he refused to be gracious for King Leopold's murder of millions of his countrymen. So, he asked the Soviets for help. He had no true interest in communism, yet that simple request earned him his assassination and his people the tyranny of Mobutu for thirty years. Similarly, the US fell out of love with Mobutu (as they are doing with Assad), and instigated two wars that cost millions of lives against those people.

When we're in a struggle against an existential threat, why should we ever back somebody who could ever waffle? This is after all, principally about our and the West's security. Concessions on our part was not something that was appropriate to give. "my way or we'll put somebody in place who does what we want" is a better route for our interests.

You also forget to mention that King Leopold had been dead for 50 years

[Kellhound]

In neocon imagination land.

In stability of the Middle East reality land.

[Skroe]

He was. But this scoffing of King Leopold had been at the independence dinner(?) in which the current king at the time, Leo's grandson, had praised his granddaddy's brutal campaign in Zaire. Lumumba took the stage and said that his people earned (and was not given independence, and the grandson had stupidly claimed) independence and was not grateful to Leopold.

Interestingly enough, a couple articles that i had read in response to that speech were very critical of Lumumba, and not the grandson. Damn them, Leopold, and his grandson. Praising murder is absolutely disgusting.

You're describing somebody that had clearly the ability to "go rogue". Why on Earth would we ever want to back a figure? Did he have a sound moral argument? Certainly. But during the Cold War, moral arguments rightfully went out the window. We would be foolish to count on such a figure to be there when we needed him.

[Independent voter]

I don't think we consider Alawi as Shia, but as a different religion on its own. I think they have their own customs that date to the time of Moses, if i recall correctly.

Iran supports Assad's Alawite people and Iran is the major Shiite power opposing Saudi Arabia which is the major Sunni power. Hezbollah also supports Assad's Alwite government.

[Skroe]

You gave the reason why we should have backed him in your second sentence. He had a sound moral argument.

Morality is not a sound basis of any foreign or security policy, and not one any serious government operates on, least of all the most powerful country on Earth that is always under assault by friends, competitors and adversaries in ways big and small.

New Zealand or something has the privilege to be able to act in a moral way all the time. Not the United States. Between acting morally or getting (what we thought was) a more reliable ally against the soviets, the latter absolutely should win out.

[Independent voter]

Ya, but not because Assad is Shia. Technically, the argument can be made that he is Sunni. But, Alawis are there own religion altogether.

The Alawis, also rendered as Alawites (Arabic: علوية‎‎ Alawīyyah), are a syncretistic sect of the Twelver branch of Shia Islam, primarily centered in Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawites

This is why Iran and Hezbollah support the Assad regime.

Some say Assad himself is secular, but the Alawite are Shiite.

[Deleted]

In stability of the Middle East reality land.

Iran lacks the ambition and ability for the goals you perscibe it to have.

Saudi Arabia is the main destabiliser, under the new crown prince it will only get worse. (yemen, qatar, internal 'reform', army of conquest)

The Americans have misunderstood the middle east completely and that is why they suffer setback after setback and loss after loss.

[Kellhound]

Iran lacks the ambition and ability for the goals you perscibe it to have.

Saudi Arabia is the main destabiliser, under the new crown prince it will only get worse. (yemen, qatar, internal 'reform', army of conquest)

The Americans have misunderstood the middle east completely and that is why they suffer setback after setback and loss after loss.

Which is why they are not involved in anything beyond their border...