Originally Posted by Dotheboyshall:
“With 74% of the population being Sunni?”
“With 74% of the population being Sunni?”
Yes, I would have an educated guess that more people in Syria support the government than any of the other contenders
What more could/can the Americans do to stop the Russians winning in Aleppo?
2 of 2
Yes, I would have an educated guess that more people in Syria support the government than any of the other contenders
We can't do anything to stop them nor should we.
The west currently and rightly so has no stomach for a land war in the middle east so rather than sitting her complaining about how the Russian army does things why not go over and show them or at least guide them in the correct direction.
The west currently and rightly so has no stomach for a land war in the middle east so rather than sitting her complaining about how the Russian army does things why not go over and show them or at least guide them in the correct direction.
Originally Posted by johnny_boi_UK:
“We can't do anything to stop them nor should we.
The west currently and rightly so has no stomach for a land war in the middle east so rather than sitting her complaining about how the Russian army does things why not go over and show them or at least guide them in the correct direction.”
“We can't do anything to stop them nor should we.
The west currently and rightly so has no stomach for a land war in the middle east so rather than sitting her complaining about how the Russian army does things why not go over and show them or at least guide them in the correct direction.”
Yes because we know exactly how to do things
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“Why should Trump stand up to Putin over this?
America had no jurisdiction there. Assad actually asked Russia for help.
Unless of course they're now suddenly in favour of foreign governments having an influence on what regime is in control of another country.
Legally America don't have a leg to stand on. It was playing fast and loose with international law. Clinton was planning to create a no-fly zone over the area which was a potentially catastrophic scenario for all of us. America has no right to do that.
Putin was helping a sovereign state protect itself by request of that state.
Putin was helping Assad rid Syria of an insurgency which as made up of extremely questionable ideological groups which could have taken power in that region and made the area even more of a hell than it currently is.
America on the other hand was helping, funding and giving weapons to these groups who we know some of which were terrorist organisations.
And I'm meant to think that Putin is the bad guy here?
I don't think goodies and baddies is the way to look at this particular situation.”
“Why should Trump stand up to Putin over this?
America had no jurisdiction there. Assad actually asked Russia for help.
Unless of course they're now suddenly in favour of foreign governments having an influence on what regime is in control of another country.
Legally America don't have a leg to stand on. It was playing fast and loose with international law. Clinton was planning to create a no-fly zone over the area which was a potentially catastrophic scenario for all of us. America has no right to do that.
Putin was helping a sovereign state protect itself by request of that state.
Putin was helping Assad rid Syria of an insurgency which as made up of extremely questionable ideological groups which could have taken power in that region and made the area even more of a hell than it currently is.
America on the other hand was helping, funding and giving weapons to these groups who we know some of which were terrorist organisations.
And I'm meant to think that Putin is the bad guy here?
I don't think goodies and baddies is the way to look at this particular situation.”
I don't find discussions with you to be productive as you tend to regurgitate propaganda as fact. Later.
Originally Posted by Jason_Cunningha:
“Yes because we know exactly how to do things”
“Yes because we know exactly how to do things”
Yes we do... or do you think we drove tanks through people's houses in Ireland during the troubles?
Why do we not want Assad and the Russians to win given the alternative is ISIS or al Qaeda.
How many more lives must be lost before we admit the obvious - the only way to get peace is an Assad victory. Do we really want to go to war with Russia to hand Syria over to fundamentalists!?
We started this war by promoting Assads overthrow and Arming the rebels and then walked away. So Russia is only seeking to end the mess we started.
Time we got a bit more realistic about the options!
How many more lives must be lost before we admit the obvious - the only way to get peace is an Assad victory. Do we really want to go to war with Russia to hand Syria over to fundamentalists!?
We started this war by promoting Assads overthrow and Arming the rebels and then walked away. So Russia is only seeking to end the mess we started.
Time we got a bit more realistic about the options!
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“Why do we not want Assad and the Russians to win given the alternative is ISIS or al Qaeda.
How many more lives must be lost before we admit the obvious - the only way to get peace is an Assad victory. Do we really want to go to war with Russia to hand Syria over to fundamentalists!?
We started this war by promoting Assads overthrow and Arming the rebels and then walked away. So Russia is only seeking to end the mess we started.
Time we got a bit more realistic about the options!”
“Why do we not want Assad and the Russians to win given the alternative is ISIS or al Qaeda.
How many more lives must be lost before we admit the obvious - the only way to get peace is an Assad victory. Do we really want to go to war with Russia to hand Syria over to fundamentalists!?
We started this war by promoting Assads overthrow and Arming the rebels and then walked away. So Russia is only seeking to end the mess we started.
Time we got a bit more realistic about the options!”
The only reason that it is either Assad or ISIS is due to Assad himself. He could have stepped aside, but of course that's difficult for an autocrat who is clinging to power and fears his own people.
Originally Posted by oncemore:
“The only reason that it is either Assad or ISIS is due to Assad himself. He could have stepped aside, but of course that's difficult for an autocrat who is clinging to power and fears his own people.”
“The only reason that it is either Assad or ISIS is due to Assad himself. He could have stepped aside, but of course that's difficult for an autocrat who is clinging to power and fears his own people.”
Yes - so what are we going to do. Go to war with Assad and Russia.
Do we want a civil war turning into a nuclear war?
Of course Assad is a brutal dictator but we had no issues with him when he was our brutal dictator in 2008 - but when he decided to be Russia's brutal dictator we decided he should go.
Our policy is utterly hypocritical! And hundreds of thousands have now died because we stirred up a hornets nest,
Originally Posted by Net Nut:
“Just saw Osborne's speech in the Commons on the TV about this and I hate to agree with a Tory but his right.”
“Just saw Osborne's speech in the Commons on the TV about this and I hate to agree with a Tory but his right.”
If we had been bombing Assad as he wanted the war would be even more prolonged and ISIS stronger.
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“Yes - so what are we going to do. Go to war with Assad and Russia.
Do we want a civil war turning into a nuclear war?
Of course Assad is a brutal dictator but we had no issues with him when he was our brutal dictator in 2008 - but when he decided to be Russia's brutal dictator we decided he should go.
Our policy is utterly hypocritical! And hundreds of thousands have now died because we stirred up a hornets nest,”
“Yes - so what are we going to do. Go to war with Assad and Russia.
Do we want a civil war turning into a nuclear war?
Of course Assad is a brutal dictator but we had no issues with him when he was our brutal dictator in 2008 - but when he decided to be Russia's brutal dictator we decided he should go.
Our policy is utterly hypocritical! And hundreds of thousands have now died because we stirred up a hornets nest,”
Oh please, you're infantilizing people and removing their agency. Not all of the problems in the ME can be laid at the feet of the west, that tired rhetoric has been played out for quite some time.
We should have not overlearned the lessons from Iraq and exerted our will in Syria. The Russians are only there because the US is so gun-shy. The Russians would have bowed out if the the US had moved in strong (they're more afraid of a direct conflict with the US than the US is with them). That garbage about a nuclear conflict is just fearmongering... neither side want that.
Plus, Russia's stirred up just as much garbage in the ME as the Americans or the Europeans. They aren't blameless in this and are clearly backing a tyrant, yet you give them a pass. Curious.
Originally Posted by oncemore:
“The only reason that it is either Assad or ISIS is due to Assad himself. He could have stepped aside, but of course that's difficult for an autocrat who is clinging to power and fears his own people.”
“The only reason that it is either Assad or ISIS is due to Assad himself. He could have stepped aside, but of course that's difficult for an autocrat who is clinging to power and fears his own people.”
It could have been sorted out years ago but the US and UK saw an miscalculated an opportunity for Assad to be overthrown
West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sad-step-aside
Originally Posted by psy7ch:
“It could have been sorted out years ago but the US and UK saw an miscalculated an opportunity for Assad to be overthrown
West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sad-step-aside”
“It could have been sorted out years ago but the US and UK saw an miscalculated an opportunity for Assad to be overthrown
West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sad-step-aside”
His claim is clearly unconfirmed if you read past the headline.
Originally Posted by oncemore:
“Oh please, you're infantilizing people and removing their agency. Not all of the problems in the ME can be laid at the feet of the west, that tired rhetoric has been played out for quite some time.
We should have not overlearned the lessons from Iraq and exerted our will in Syria. The Russians are only there because the US is so gun-shy. The Russians would have bowed out if the the US had moved in strong (they're more afraid of a direct conflict with the US than the US is with them). That garbage about a nuclear conflict is just fearmongering... neither side want that.
Plus, Russia's stirred up just as much garbage in the ME as the Americans or the Europeans. They aren't blameless in this and are clearly backing a tyrant, yet you give them a pass. Curious.”
“Oh please, you're infantilizing people and removing their agency. Not all of the problems in the ME can be laid at the feet of the west, that tired rhetoric has been played out for quite some time.
We should have not overlearned the lessons from Iraq and exerted our will in Syria. The Russians are only there because the US is so gun-shy. The Russians would have bowed out if the the US had moved in strong (they're more afraid of a direct conflict with the US than the US is with them). That garbage about a nuclear conflict is just fearmongering... neither side want that.
Plus, Russia's stirred up just as much garbage in the ME as the Americans or the Europeans. They aren't blameless in this and are clearly backing a tyrant, yet you give them a pass. Curious.”
This is nonsense. Syria is the only country with access to Mediterranean the Russians have a military base. It was never going to just give this up. The motive for the US and UK to see Assad overthrown was to remove this influence and they were even prepared to see the growth of ISIS in Syria to achieve this aim. They messed up big time.
Originally Posted by oncemore:
“His claim is clearly unconfirmed if you read past the headline.”
“His claim is clearly unconfirmed if you read past the headline.”
Yeah the Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari is making it all up. 'Western diplomats at the UN refused to speak on the record about Ahtisaari’s claim' is what you have to back you up?
Originally Posted by psy7ch:
“This is nonsense. Syria is the only country with access to Mediterranean the Russians have a military base. It was never going to just give this up. The motive for the US and UK to see Assad overthrown was to remove this influence and they were even prepared to see the growth of ISIS in Syria to achieve this aim. They messed up big time.”
“This is nonsense. Syria is the only country with access to Mediterranean the Russians have a military base. It was never going to just give this up. The motive for the US and UK to see Assad overthrown was to remove this influence and they were even prepared to see the growth of ISIS in Syria to achieve this aim. They messed up big time.”
The US would have preferred to have Assad out of power and democratic reforms in Syria, but Assad is a desperate megalomaniac who bombs his own people. If there's any justice in the world he will stand for war crimes.
Originally Posted by oncemore:
“The US would have preferred to have Assad out of power and democratic reforms in Syria, but Assad is a desperate megalomaniac who bombs his own people. If there's any justice in the world he will stand for war crimes.”
“The US would have preferred to have Assad out of power and democratic reforms in Syria, but Assad is a desperate megalomaniac who bombs his own people. If there's any justice in the world he will stand for war crimes.”
Like the US supported Saudi's? You are missing both the hypocrisy and the motive. How do you think the Saudi regime respond to its citizens campaigning for democratic reforms?
Originally Posted by psy7ch:
“Like the US supported Saudi's? You are missing both the hypocrisy and the motive. How do you think the Saudi regime respond to its citizens campaigning for democratic reforms?”
“Like the US supported Saudi's? You are missing both the hypocrisy and the motive. How do you think the Saudi regime respond to its citizens campaigning for democratic reforms?”
pointing out hypocrisy in foreign policy is beyond boring.
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“Why do we not want Assad and the Russians to win given the alternative is ISIS or al Qaeda.
How many more lives must be lost before we admit the obvious - the only way to get peace is an Assad victory. Do we really want to go to war with Russia to hand Syria over to fundamentalists!?
We started this war by promoting Assads overthrow and Arming the rebels and then walked away. So Russia is only seeking to end the mess we started.
Time we got a bit more realistic about the options!”
“Why do we not want Assad and the Russians to win given the alternative is ISIS or al Qaeda.
How many more lives must be lost before we admit the obvious - the only way to get peace is an Assad victory. Do we really want to go to war with Russia to hand Syria over to fundamentalists!?
We started this war by promoting Assads overthrow and Arming the rebels and then walked away. So Russia is only seeking to end the mess we started.
Time we got a bit more realistic about the options!”
Sensible post.
People in the middle east need to sort out their own issues. No solutions to religious fundamentalism can come from outside. The muslim world needs to find it's own enlightenment.
Originally Posted by oncemore:
“I don't find discussions with you to be productive as you tend to regurgitate propaganda as fact. Later.”
“I don't find discussions with you to be productive as you tend to regurgitate propaganda as fact. Later.”
Well that was a very productive reply to my post from you wasn't it?
You're not even trying to have a discussion with me. You're just trying to undermine my opinions by taking a personal potshot at me.
At least I posted something with some thought about the thread topic which is there for anyone to consider one way or the other.
Originally Posted by oncemore:
“The US would have preferred to have Assad out of power and democratic reforms in Syria, but Assad is a desperate megalomaniac who bombs his own people. If there's any justice in the world he will stand for war crimes.”
“The US would have preferred to have Assad out of power and democratic reforms in Syria, but Assad is a desperate megalomaniac who bombs his own people. If there's any justice in the world he will stand for war crimes.”
That's quite something. You speak of megalomaniacs but it seems to just roll off your tongue so casually that you think America have the right to just wade in there and do what they want to have a regime in place which is to their liking.
How much of a war crime do you think it would be if America did as you suggest without any international mandate?
There are quite a few countries in the world which aren't fair and just and who don't have what we recognise as a western style democracy. But America only gets involved in the practice of regime change for certain countries when it's politically expedient for them or it benefits them from a geopolitical strategic point of view..
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“Why should Trump stand up to Putin over this?
America had no jurisdiction there. Assad actually asked Russia for help.
Unless of course they're now suddenly in favour of foreign governments having an influence on what regime is in control of another country.
Legally America don't have a leg to stand on. It was playing fast and loose with international law. Clinton was planning to create a no-fly zone over the area which was a potentially catastrophic scenario for all of us. America has no right to do that.
Putin was helping a sovereign state protect itself by request of that state.
Putin was helping Assad rid Syria of an insurgency which as made up of extremely questionable ideological groups which could have taken power in that region and made the area even more of a hell than it currently is.
America on the other hand was helping, funding and giving weapons to these groups who we know some of which were terrorist organisations.
And I'm meant to think that Putin is the bad guy here?
I don't think goodies and baddies is the way to look at this particular situation.”
“Why should Trump stand up to Putin over this?
America had no jurisdiction there. Assad actually asked Russia for help.
Unless of course they're now suddenly in favour of foreign governments having an influence on what regime is in control of another country.
Legally America don't have a leg to stand on. It was playing fast and loose with international law. Clinton was planning to create a no-fly zone over the area which was a potentially catastrophic scenario for all of us. America has no right to do that.
Putin was helping a sovereign state protect itself by request of that state.
Putin was helping Assad rid Syria of an insurgency which as made up of extremely questionable ideological groups which could have taken power in that region and made the area even more of a hell than it currently is.
America on the other hand was helping, funding and giving weapons to these groups who we know some of which were terrorist organisations.
And I'm meant to think that Putin is the bad guy here?
I don't think goodies and baddies is the way to look at this particular situation.”
Pretty much my take (understanding) and the nearest to actuality that I can assess with the information available. Saved me typing loads to.
Originally Posted by Nodger:
“Pretty much my take (understanding) and the nearest to actuality that I can assess with the information available. Saved me typing loads to.”
“Pretty much my take (understanding) and the nearest to actuality that I can assess with the information available. Saved me typing loads to.”
Yes I think you made a point which was worth making, in that until the dust settles we won't know for sure what has gone on. Compared to other modern wars the information and access to information we have had has been limited.
Right there's probably a lot of people following the line that Russia is bad, and that is the main story being pumped out of the news on a regular basis. That seems to be all the rage right now. But if Assad had been deposed, in ten years time we would probably be lumping Syria in with other failed states like Libya and Iraq as examples of western forces trying to muscle in and change states into puppet regimes which are to their liking. So far this approach has been an utter disaster, and has been for about a century.
Naturally this doesn't mean that all of these states are good in themselves, in many cases that couldn't be further from the truth, but the West are just making things a lot worse and creating new problems which only end up manifesting themselves a few years later.
Originally Posted by David_Elson:
“Sensible post.
People in the middle east need to sort out their own issues. No solutions to religious fundamentalism can come from outside. The muslim world needs to find it's own enlightenment.”
“Sensible post.
People in the middle east need to sort out their own issues. No solutions to religious fundamentalism can come from outside. The muslim world needs to find it's own enlightenment.”
It looks like things may be starting to change more towards that direction right now in terms of ISIS. Recently in Iraq we heard about the multi-nation task force made up of middle eastern states in the battle for Mosul, and Iran have also been involved in Aleppo by siding with Syria and Russia to drive out the terrorist forces.
There still appears to be the problem that America have ensured that plenty of military hardware has been pumped into the region which will inevitably be used again at some point.
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“Yes - so what are we going to do. Go to war with Assad and Russia.
Do we want a civil war turning into a nuclear war?
Of course Assad is a brutal dictator but we had no issues with him when he was our brutal dictator in 2008 - but when he decided to be Russia's brutal dictator we decided he should go.
Our policy is utterly hypocritical! And hundreds of thousands have now died because we stirred up a hornets nest,”
“Yes - so what are we going to do. Go to war with Assad and Russia.
Do we want a civil war turning into a nuclear war?
Of course Assad is a brutal dictator but we had no issues with him when he was our brutal dictator in 2008 - but when he decided to be Russia's brutal dictator we decided he should go.
Our policy is utterly hypocritical! And hundreds of thousands have now died because we stirred up a hornets nest,”
Very much agree. Sadly the western mainstream media has become as big a propaganda tool as Russa today and the like.
It seems there were only two options to removing Assad. One, somehow enforce a democratic election. However the winner of this majority Sunni country's election would have been a new sunni leader aligned with Iran and maintaining ties with russia, and not being allied to the US & UK's chums the Saudis and other shia western-facing countries. This was completely unacceptable to the West.
Which left Option two. CIA and anyone else to arm the rebels and create a civil war to overthrow Assad. And many credible sources say it was only when these rebels started uprising did Assad start inflicting such terrible attrocities on his own people, namely the rebels. Not that he was ever a saint before this (but neither are Bahrain, Saudi and may of our allies). But the only rebels in Syria are in effect Al Qaeda or very similar terrorists with very similar beliefs and objectives. So who have the US (and poss UK?) been arming and supporting in Syria again? After the attrocity of 9/11, surely not! And who exactly have Russia and Syria just defeated in Aleppo? Watching the western mainstream media you'd never guess pro-Assad forces just slaughtered muslim extremists allied to or even part of Al Qaeda. And just to top things off the West has even ignored ISIS convoys and let them retake Palmyra, presumably as this causes Assad and Russia an issue?
Robert Fisk, the excellent mainstream british middle eastern correspondent is the only truth telling UK journalist today:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7471576.html
2 of 2
