Did Putin checkmate the US with their presence in Syria? (Iraq, Afghanistan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure there is. I like quite a few people stand to make money on that sort of thing. Proxy wars are what Amerika DOES. If you don't like our bandwagon, then git the hell out!
Sure there is. I like quite a few people stand to make money on that sort of thing. Proxy wars are what Amerika DOES. If you don't like our bandwagon, then git the hell out!
I meant as a nation. But, yes, there are individuals and industries that would gain from a proxy war.
A couple years ago, Putin wrote an op-ed in the NYT detailing reasons against deposing Assad. A few months later, the CIA engineered a coup in Ukraine.
What can the US do now that Russia is defending Syria? There is no way that the US can oust Assad with the Russian military in place.
If we attack Russia or its allies, Russia will likely respond with a cyber attack, devastating the US financially and causing pandemonium.
What will the US do next?
It does what it did when the Soviet Union crushed the East Germans in 1950, the Hungarians in 1956, The Czechs in 1968, The Poles in 1970,and 1981 or the Afghans in 1979. Nothing except provide refuge for the few who escaped from these lands and keep up the diplomatic and economic pressure. In time Mr Putin like Mr Gorbachev before him will have one too many dead soldiers to keep it hidden under the Kremlin rug. Then he will join Mr Gorbachev in involuntary retirement. Just wait for the first Russian soldier or pilot to have his head cut off and the body desecrated. Just like the Mujahadin did in Afghanistan before the bodies where sent back to the USSR. .
Assad, the legitimate leader of Syria, invited the Russians in to assist. Syria did not invite the US in. The US should mind its own business.
Syria has never had a "legitimate" leader. Bashir Assad's father Hafez seized power in a military coup which overthrew his predecessor who also seized power in a military coup. Hafez Assad chose Bashir to replace him when Bashir's older brother got too big for his britches and Daddy had to have him killed.
Prior to this Bashir was studying medicine and might have been dentist . Bashir has never risked a contested election where he might be voted out.
So why do you think Bashir has any claim on power apart from brute force of arms?
Syria has never had a "legitimate" leader. Bashir Assad's father Hafez seized power in a military coup which overthrew his predecessor who also seized power in a military coup. Hafez Assad chose Bashir to replace him when Bashir's older brother got too big for his britches and Daddy had to have him killed.
Prior to this Bashir was studying medicine and might have been dentist . Bashir has never risked a contested election where he might be voted out.
So why do you think Bashir has any claim on power apart from brute force of arms?
Because this is the middle east and force is all the claim you need.
Syria has never had a "legitimate" leader. Bashir Assad's father Hafez seized power in a military coup which overthrew his predecessor who also seized power in a military coup. Hafez Assad chose Bashir to replace him when Bashir's older brother got too big for his britches and Daddy had to have him killed.
Prior to this Bashir was studying medicine and might have been dentist . Bashir has never risked a contested election where he might be voted out.
So why do you think Bashir has any claim on power apart from brute force of arms?
So who would be a "legitimate leader" in Syria according to your opinion?
The one whom Kurds, radical muslims, Shias and Sunnis plus Christians alike will "democratically" vote into the office?
Just lol.
Syria has never had a "legitimate" leader. Bashir Assad's father Hafez seized power in a military coup which overthrew his predecessor who also seized power in a military coup. Hafez Assad chose Bashir to replace him when Bashir's older brother got too big for his britches and Daddy had to have him killed.
Prior to this Bashir was studying medicine and might have been dentist . Bashir has never risked a contested election where he might be voted out.
So why do you think Bashir has any claim on power apart from brute force of arms?
The current Syrian government is internationally recognized and has been for decades. You can state any history you want, but at the end of the day, Assad is the leader of Syria.
But again, what business is it of ours? They are on the other side of the world, let countries in that region handle it, and that would include Russia.
As for "force of arms", every government in the ME exists due to brute force. What the hell you think is going on now, the terrorists are using brute force of arms to take power and establish a caliphate.
I am still baffled why so many people advocate a radical, Taliban type state to exist in Syria, and think that is better than Assad.
Edit: Even better, I guess you forgot about Iran, and how the US and UK supported a coup, by force of arms, to overthrow the elected leader and install the Shah. But in your delusional mind, that is completely ok because the US did it.
Last edited by k350; 10-04-2015 at 12:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
