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.
However, I stand firm on my opinion that the US has extended the Syrian Civil War through its involvement - leading to more deaths of women and children. You pointed out that the rebels were close to winning in 2015, before Russia got more involved.
Why were the rebels close to winning?
Was it because the US had been arming the Syrian rebels well in advance of 2015?
The war broke out in March 2011...we were assisting the rebels pretty early...Obama kept arming rebels, even though terrorists kept getting weapons and the situation of who was who was murky at best...just keep pouring more weapons in, what is another Muslim world power vacuum? Obama is a genius! But wait...there is more!!!
Bush had actually funded Syrian opposition before the Syrian Civil War broke out back in 2006 and gave them some weapons in 2007.
We, the US, are responsible for much of the carnage...as we funded the rebels BEFORE the civil war and then repeatedly armed them even though too many rebels were terrorists....that is on us.
Had we stayed out of it completely there likely wouldn't be as many deaths and there wouldn't be as many terrorists with weapons.
One America's Pearson Sharp visited the war-torn town of Douma outside the capital of Damascus, looking for evidence of a chemical attack.
However, residents there deny the claims of an attack, and say it was staged to help the rebels escape.
Not really. Assad and Russia pretty much have them defeated. Unless the U.S. has ulterior motives, of course.
ISIS is a social construct. Anyone can go on the internet, watch a bunch of ISIS videos, and become self-radicalized. There have been dozens of would-be American ISIS fighters who were caught before they could go over there and join. What, are we supposed to censor the internet?
Bad habit (mine) of reading too quickly ... I missed your "them."
Who is this "them" of whom you speak? Sure a radical may be a radical may be a radical ... but where they are counts.
There is this matter of a line that has been drawn in Syria - not only in the air but on the ground - with the SDF (originally mainly YPF but now with lots of ethnic Arabs) fighting ISIS on one side with US support and Assad and the Russia fighting rebels (with admittedly most of the former Sunni moderates now dead, fled) on the other.
If Assad and the Russians try to march on up to Raqqa say thank you very much but now we'll take over ... well that may not go well. In February, a whole bunch of Russian mercenaries got killed for having their feet in the wrong place. And then they have this nasty habit of using barrel bombs ...
We, the US, are responsible for much of the carnage...as we funded the rebels BEFORE the civil war and then repeatedly armed them even though too many rebels were terrorists....that is on us.
Had we stayed out of it completely there likely wouldn't be as many deaths and there wouldn't be as many terrorists with weapons.
The U.S. has been meddling in Syria's affairs for 70 years:
However, I stand firm on my opinion that the US has extended the Syrian Civil War through its involvement - leading to more deaths of women and children. You pointed out that the rebels were close to winning in 2015, before Russia got more involved.
Why were the rebels close to winning?
Was it because the US had been arming the Syrian rebels well in advance of 2015?
The war broke out in March 2011...we were assisting the rebels pretty early...Obama kept arming rebels, even though terrorists kept getting weapons and the situation of who was who was murky at best...just keep pouring more weapons in, what is another Muslim world power vacuum? Obama is a genius! But wait...there is more!!!
Bush had actually funded Syrian opposition before the Syrian Civil War broke out back in 2006 and gave them some weapons in 2007.
We, the US, are responsible for much of the carnage...as we funded the rebels BEFORE the civil war and then repeatedly armed them even though too many rebels were terrorists....that is on us.
Had we stayed out of it completely there likely wouldn't be as many deaths and there wouldn't be as many terrorists with weapons.
Time is killing me ... but my general recollection here matches yours ... and your cites are NYT and Reuters ... and I trust your take ... SO
I think the PAST important ... history not repeating itself stuff, learning from mistakes ... and necessary for context. It was only 20 years ago that we thought getting rid of dictators a win-win and here invoked Hitler. We now know better - at least when it comes to tribal countries ... that do not have experience with democracy ... with a relatively smaller educated middle class ... that may have spoils like oil.
But to answer your questions ... Assad had been on the US-bad list for years (Israel, ties to Iran) ... then he morphed really nasty ... some nice rebels came along and so, yes, there was support ... though if memory calls, it took a reluctant Obama a full 6 months to call for his ouster???
Not sure of the timing, amounts of weapons but the neocons said too little, too late - and here I see an Obama weakness. He seems to get the concepts right but fails at the politics and gives in too much or gives in too little or messes up the timing or holds to a position when he should not or does not hold to a position when he should.
So I can agree (and do) up the wazoo with some of the theory but we still have the timing thing. Detest arguments about staying in a losing war because of past "expenditures" but to leave a winning war - ISIS, at this particular point in time may be equally problematic.
So how does the sarin/chlorine and our missile strike fit into the reality we're stuck with, what's on the ground now? Damned if I know - for I first voted uncertain for the strike then (mentally) changed from vote to no.
These are the people we're trying to sacrifice to ISIS.
Whatever the Trump strike may be about I really don't think he wants to see ISIS reconstitute itself and take out Assad. Bolton probably wants US soldiers to do it.
There are lots of Kurd girls in green carrying AK-somethings supported by the US who are fighting to keep girls like this safe.
I agree. We have all seen what they will do if left unchecked, and we have seen that it is not limited to America.
In a different country we have seen what Taliban will do if they can get away with it.
We need to stay in those countries and keep them under control.
I would say that Countries like Syria, Libya, and Iraq were under control. That is until we upended everything and started a wild fire.
ISIS gained momentum because of the vacuum we created. Not the other way around.
People may not like it, but some cultures need a strong dictator to keep them under control. Without and you get ISSIS.
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,606 posts, read 16,671,222 times
Reputation: 29765
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun
American Leftists, not necessarily Liberal, have had the Soviet Union as their favorite destination for years. Lately Russia has fallen out of favor but places like Cuba and formally Venezuala have been their go to favoristas
To be "real" as left-wing, being a failure and inflicting misery on their people is necessary.
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.
