Syria About to Reignite

For what it's worth, Ron Paul's onboard with the idea that the timing of this doesn't make any sense:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15162...l-attack-syria-false-james-barrett#exit-modal

Paul returned to his central point: Why would Assad ruin a campaign that was going "reasonably well"?

"Who would benefit?" he asked. "It makes no sense, even if you were totally separate from this and take no sides of this and you were just an analyst, it doesn’t make sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gasses. I think it’s zero chance that he would have done this deliberately, and he's doing this now."

After Paul smacked Sen. John McCain for absurdly blaming Trump for the chemical attack, Paul said the neocons and the "deep state" were out there colluding with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and various pro-oil, pro-military industrialism types trying to manufacture public support for war.
Click to expand...
 
If a partition is going to happen (which I don't think is a crazy idea), it would have to come after ISIS is completely destroyed and would probably happen through a Potsdam-like conference between the US and Russia and their respective allies. We'd probably end up with a Russia-aligned Syria and a US-aligned Kurdistan. That might be a best case scenario, but it would take one hell of a mess to get there.​
The Kurds are at the tip of the spear as far as defeating ISIS in Raqqa. Saker has listed several problems down the road with a partition. The Kurds would be bordering Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, all of which would find an independent Kurd state unacceptable. A lot in the link some of which you would disagree with but a lot of thought went into it.


http://thesaker.is/category/breaking-articles/analyses/
 
Politifact has now "retracted" this 2014 fact-check...

Joe Fan said:
What would we do without our factcheckers?
C8qzap-XsAEsy6b.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Musburger1 said:
The Kurds are at the tip of the spear as far as defeating ISIS in Raqqa. Saker has listed several problems down the road with a partition. The Kurds would be bordering Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, all of which would find an independent Kurd state unacceptable. A lot in the link some of which you would disagree with but a lot of thought went into it.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that it'll be unacceptable to some just as I'm sure it was unacceptable to some for the Red Army to be in Czechoslovakia and Poland after WWII, but there's no way the US would participate in a major war (which this would be) and have nothing to show for it when it's over. Furthermore, if we've got hundreds of thousands of troops deployed all over Northern Iraq and Syria, we'll have enough leverage to get at least some of what we want.

Furthermore, I doubt we'll be dumb enough to just pack up and go home like we did after the Iraq War. It'll be a long term presence like we've had in Korea and Germany. Let's put it this way. If it doesn't become that, then we'd be insane to go at all. It would be a massive waste of time, money, and blood. We'd be better off just letting Assad kill everybody and letting Putin occupy the place.
 
Assuming that's what happens - the Kurds are granted a home land and we set up camp - it's not the same thing as putting bases in Germany or Italy. It would be more like what we saw in Iraq. Terrorists supported by Iran and also by Turkey will be a constant force of disruption for both the Kurds as well as US troops. The US public eventually gets pissed, veterans complain about multiple tours, IED attacks and such, and eventually a new politician promises to bring home the troops, and history repeats.
 
Joe Fan said:
Click to expand...

Note how the tone of Russian spokesmen such as Peskov and Lavrov are always measured and professional as opposed to most US diplomats who tend to rashly insist on action before weighing consequences are even before facts can be gathered and evaluated. Our guys tend to box themselves end with "red lines" or "promises to act" and then either look foolish and back down or continue supporting an incorrect premise in order to save face.
 
CNN had a child read from a script to push for the US to enter into another war in the ME

Doesnt the fact that this is what CNN wants make everything more dubious?
Most of the agendas they push turn out later to be fake or false


cnn-fake-news-to-bring-us-into-war.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here is Ron Paul back in January on "false flag" attacks

He says that false flag attacks could be used by both the so-called American “deep state” and foreign actors to draw the Trump administration into foreign engagements.

“All we need is a false flag and an accident and everybody will be for teaching them a lesson. You know the deep state is very very powerful and they have a lot of control.”
* * *
“I think there’s the shadow government, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and all the things that can be done because they just melt away and they do exactly what the establishment says.”​

 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't doubt that it'll be unacceptable to some just as I'm sure it was unacceptable to some for the Red Army to be in Czechoslovakia and Poland after WWII, but there's no way the US would participate in a major war (which this would be) and have nothing to show for it when it's over. Furthermore, if we've got hundreds of thousands of troops deployed all over Northern Iraq and Syria, we'll have enough leverage to get at least some of what we want.

Furthermore, I doubt we'll be dumb enough to just pack up and go home like we did after the Iraq War. It'll be a long term presence like we've had in Korea and Germany. Let's put it this way. If it doesn't become that, then we'd be insane to go at all. It would be a massive waste of time, money, and blood. We'd be better off just letting Assad kill everybody and letting Putin occupy the place.
Click to expand...

I would argue that this should be our default position on most conflicts. If we go in, we are doing this Germany style. We are committing to a 50 year effort that begins with a huge military effort to control and stabilize and then we dictate capitalistic and democratic changes. We build 3-4 big bases that can be eventually turned into schools/medical centers and we commit to two generations of keeping the peace. It takes two generations before you create real change.

A commitment of this sort changes the dialogue for all parties. It works very much like Trumps immigration rhetoric. If they believe you mean it, they behave very differently.

Part of our Afghanistan and Iraq issues were that we continued to do the by-with-thru approach and left way too much in the hands of the in country elites. They are always maneuvering to get their share.

The drum beat the whole time from the Taliban was..."the Americans are leaving soon...you better comply with our Taliban orders or else we'll get you when they leave"

That doesn't hold much water when the US will be here for 50 years.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I would argue that this should be our default position on most conflicts. If we go in, we are doing this Germany style. We are committing to a 50 year effort that begins with a huge military effort to control and stabilize and then we dictate capitalistic and democratic changes. We build 3-4 big bases that can be eventually turned into schools/medical centers and we commit to two generations of keeping the peace. It takes two generations before you create real change.

A commitment of this sort changes the dialogue for all parties. It works very much like Trumps immigration rhetoric. If they believe you mean it, they behave very differently.

Part of our Afghanistan and Iraq issues were that we continued to do the by-with-thru approach and left way too much in the hands of the in country elites. They are always maneuvering to get their share.

The drum beat the whole time from the Taliban was..."the Americans are leaving soon...you better comply with our Taliban orders or else we'll get you when they leave"

That doesn't hold much water when the US will be here for 50 years.
Click to expand...
Your proposal seems to be the predominant view. This is empire. Every previous empire eventually failed. Corruption, overreach, and neglect of domestic needs weigh in. The US has neither the mandate nor the manpower to succeed in the direction we are headed.
 
Musburger1 said:
Assuming that's what happens - the Kurds are granted a home land and we set up camp - it's not the same thing as putting bases in Germany or Italy. It would be more like what we saw in Iraq. Terrorists supported by Iran and also by Turkey will be a constant force of disruption for both the Kurds as well as US troops. The US public eventually gets pissed, veterans complain about multiple tours, IED attacks and such, and eventually a new politician promises to bring home the troops, and history repeats.
Click to expand...

I think the situation would be pretty different. First, our underlying purpose in going to Iraq ended up being false. That's going to hurt the public's motivation and tolerance for casualties in a hurry. Not much chance of that happening in a war against Assad and especially ISIS.

Second, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but it was hard to make the case that he was uniquely bad for a Middle Eastern dictator and therefore worthy of getting overthrown. The public is more motivated to take casualties if there are clearly defined villains. That's easy to do with Assad or ISIS. There's video of gassed children, gays getting thrown off buildings, heads getting chopped off, people getting burned alive, terror attacks in Europe and the US, etc.

Third, the insurgencies that happened after the Iraq War only caused us a lot of trouble because we were half-assed. There were lines we weren't willing to cross. I don't think Trump would be that way. If he actually committed to a full blown war, I think he'd let the military do whatever it took and would show no mercy at all. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but I think that's what he'd do.
 
Like Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign in his views on Russia, HRC's stated plans for instituting a no-fly zone in Syria in hindsight may have been the best move. Both Obama and Trump appear to have been caught flat-footed or were naive to the actions of Russia/Syria.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Like Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign in his views on Russia, HRC's stated plans for instituting a no-fly zone in Syria in hindsight may have been the best move. Both Obama and Trump appear to have been caught flat-footed or were naive to the actions of Russia/Syria.
Click to expand...

Well, that depends. What happens when Russian aircraft violate the no-fly zone? Do we shoot them down?
 
Mr. Deez said:
I think the situation would be pretty different. First, our underlying purpose in going to Iraq ended up being false. That's going to hurt the public's motivation and tolerance for casualties in a hurry. Not much chance of that happening in a war against Assad and especially ISIS.

Second, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but it was hard to make the case that he was uniquely bad for a Middle Eastern dictator and therefore worthy of getting overthrown. The public is more motivated to take casualties if there are clearly defined villains. That's easy to do with Assad or ISIS. There's video of gassed children, gays getting thrown off buildings, heads getting chopped off, people getting burned alive, terror attacks in Europe and the US, etc.

Third, the insurgencies that happened after the Iraq War only caused us a lot of trouble because we were half-assed. There were lines we weren't willing to cross. I don't think Trump would be that way. If he actually committed to a full blown war, I think he'd let the military do whatever it took and would show no mercy at all. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but I think that's what he'd do.
Click to expand...
We went into Iraq under the false assumption Saddam's Iraq posed a security threat. With Assad, it's the P2P or Promise to Protect. The irony here is that we tend to destroy a civilization under the pretext we are saving oppressed people from their evil ruler. But what really happens is that we see to it tens of thousands die, hundreds of thousands lose their homes and possessions, infrastructure is wiped out, and then connected US companies are granted sweet government contracts to rebuild or extract resources.

On your second point, Saddam was considered by most Americans to be the most evil guy on the planet. He used gas against the Iranians and also against the Kurds. He was accused (and believed) to be hiding a nuclear program and also a bioweapons program. A Kuwaiti woman, later on outed as someone in the royal family, claimed Iraqi soldiers were taking babies from incubators in hospitals. Similar rhetoric is being ramped up now against Assad. Just being a harsh dictator isn't enough. We not only point out true atrocities, we also manufacure unproven and false ones.

Your third point is likely correct. I think Trump (or the people really running the show now) will go scorched earth. And it will fail to meet the stated objective of bringing stability and defeating terror. It will remove Assad, but so what?

As I've stated frequently, defeating terror is a complete impossibility when you are allied with Saudi Arabia. The ruling class is very large and not homogeneous. Many within the ruling class support Wahabbism and the jihadists which are spawned out of the ideology. The quest to remove Assad is nothing more than a geopolitical objective to defeat Iran and to wrestle as much control as possible from competing factions around the Middle East.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Russia may be more open to support a no-fly zone now than they were a week ago. According to the AP, Russia's support for Assad is not unconditional.
Click to expand...
A no fly zone means ceding control of the air space to the US. To accomplish that Russia would have to agree to stand down and allow the US to wipe out Syrian radar and defense systems. I'm not sure if Iran would launch strikes against Israel or not as they've invested quite a bit into Syria and don't want to see their efforts done in vain.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Russia may be more open to support a no-fly zone now than they were a week ago. According to the AP, Russia's support for Assad is not unconditional.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but we would have clashed with them before the gas attack. And don't forget that Russia benefits from Assad. Obviously, they can't defend chemical weapon use, so they have to do the obligatory condemnation, but I doubt they'll fully bail on him. They like having Tartus Naval Base too much.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Perhaps, but we would have clashed with them before the gas attack. And don't forget that Russia benefits from Assad. Obviously, they can't defend chemical weapon use, so they have to do the obligatory condemnation, but I doubt they'll fully bail on him. They like having Tartus Naval Base too much.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I could see a remedy where we divide up Syria in a no-fly zone in which we (Russia and US) each control the skies of a specific zone. As evidence mounts against Assad and his use of Chemical warfare, it will become increasingly difficult for Russia to try and play the statesman without acquiescing to some control of Syria's leader.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Agreed. I could see a remedy where we divide up Syria in a no-fly zone in which we (Russia and US) each control the skies of a specific zone. As evidence mounts against Assad and his use of Chemical warfare, it will become increasingly difficult for Russia to try and play the statesman without acquiescing to some control of Syria's leader.
Click to expand...
I think the US has gotten about all the mileage they can on the gas attack accusation. If that isn't good enough to get the public behind the idea of bombing Damascus to smithereens we'll see claims of torture chambers or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top