Russia's economy is crumbling to bits, they've scared off every innovator possible by shutting off their internet and promoting homophobia--they're literally on the path to becoming an oil client state with no foreign reserves in a 21st century economy that will surpass them. And now they're getting involved in a protracted war by bombing a few people to get more terrorists rallied--you know, the kind of thing the United States has been doing for the last fifteen years to great success. And they're doing it to support a dictator who has killed so many more of his own people then ISIS. The fact that people think this is "winning" just shows how much of international politics is about e-penises rather than rational thought.
So what's the notion about Putin outsmarting Obama? Why would you post an article by Krauthammer who believes Assad should be removed when that is the worst thing possible? What exactly is your point other than to bash Obama? Do you understand if Republican hawks there had their way, there would be a lot more U.S. arms in the country and "moderate" Sunnis would have overthrown Assad by now? I think both parties have it wrong. The difference is Obama had some doubts about the "moderates" instead of going full guns ablazing. Wingnuts here that control the GOP still believe U.S. military power is the solution to every problem.
A reminder for those of us who can so readily accept Assad. http://www.vocativ.com/news/224151/syria-government-assad-kills-more-civilians-than-isis/
Every Syrian agree on this " Assad is a clawless idiot..", he is not in charge at all at this point. The one does the killing mainly Iranian and their proxies of Shia's militants. Add to this Assad and his allies never fought ISIS, in many places they actually coordinates . Russia will just follow these footsteps in killing non ISIS/pro-Assad. So basically for every Syrians got killed ,
Where in that article does it say that the author wants Assad removed? Please provide a quote. Thanks. I am not here to bash Obama. I think he is a pretty cool guy. But he is clueless as far as foreign policy goes. It's just a fact. He described ISIS as a "junior varsity team". And so on and so on. He just doesn't understand how it works. The whole notion of "moderates" you could support in Syria and thereby somehow get the situation under control is stupid. It just leads to more weapons in the hands of ISIS. Actually, this notion of supporting "moderate Islamists" is complete crap. It goes back to the notion of an existence of a "moderate political Islam". It doesn't exist. Just ask fchowd0311. There are peaceful, passive, secular Muslims, but Islam per se wants domination. Please provide evidence for this statement. Also, you can't half-ass it like Obama does, and expect results. You either have to go in massively or stay out of it, except for gathering intelligence. I don't think that every Republican wants to storm in there guns blazing. But Obama's misguided wishful thinking has just made everything worse.
When you say "Obama is clueless" are you saying the entirety of the US intelligence community and State department don't actually have real information or that there exists no rational decisions to be made? What clues should he be taking?
You make a good point: It is unclear how much of that goes back to him personally or to his staff. But ultimately, he is responsible. It's also not like other presidents only made good decisions (see: Iraq war). But someone who says ISIS is a junior varsity team is clueless.
When a conservative states that Obama is clueless about foreign policy, I just automatically assume it's because Obama didn't start a full scale war.
That's not where I stand. I was against the Iraq invasion as well, by the way. It's documented on this BBS. It just seems to me that Obama's focus is domestic policy, he just doesn't seem to understand much about foreign policy.
I think Trump makes a good point that we give billions of dollars to people we don't know. We don't know who these people are. We don't even know who we are supporting. Listen, John McCain was pleading on the senate floor that these guys are not Islamic extremists and that "allah akbar" doesn't have religious connotation. Yeah right. There really isn't a solid plan to do anything that won't involve giving weapons to a bunch of durkah durkahs. The best thing to do is probably to not do anything.
Agree in general and that's what we mostly have been doing. That Billion figure is wrong. We haven't given Billion to anyone in the Syria's war. We have provided a few hundred of million in non-lethal aid to the rebels and a much smaller amount to the civilian oppositions. We started but quickly stopped providing arms to them after exactly not knowing who is really who. We probably have given more arms to the Kurds to fight ISIS in Iraq, who is extending their fight into Syria. It seems the US, whatever it does, wouldn't have stopped what is happening over there. What has happen was bound to happen, unless the international community was committed to one direction. With the history over there, that was not likely going to happen given what you have isn't just a normal civil war. It's a civil war started from civilian unrest that immediately turned into a religious war with two fractions of Islam fighting each other directly and through proxy. You look at who are involved and it's hard to take any side. One general side is Assad with support from Hezbollah, Iran, Russia and a few other players. The other general side is the rebel with support from the Sunni Arab states intertwined with ISIS, Al-Qaeda, ... Maybe a third more independent player not attached to either side is the Kurds. I don't know how we could support Assad with him killing his own people in mass. You may said, it's better than continue mass death, but I think that was unavoidable when the like of Saudi Arabi and Qatar were pumping in Billions to fund the rebels. Perhaps our interest should be very narrow over there. Aside from helping with the humanitarian crisis, we do not fund or arm any sides but only aim to take out ISIS for now. Not even sure if supporting the Kurds to take out ISIS is a good long term move. They will want to keep what they won and form their own nation.
I am not sure what the US could have done. Take down Assad and you have what Iraq is today - a big mess. We can't support Assad. To me, Russia supporting Assad is the best thing we can hope for. They can do what we can not - put an iron-fisted dictator in place. Let them crush these rebels - the rebels are useless. 4 years and they have done nothing. Assad is the only one who is ruthless enough to restore stability. Syria was better off with him prior to the civil war. Let him reassert himself and kick ISIS out. The U.S. only has to focus on ISIS. Forget about these rebels. Let Russia and Assad fight ISIS on the ground.
I think Obama was pretty idealistic, but the toolset he was given was pretty bare. He can't build lasting coalitions that promise troops on ground. Airstrikes have been used so much that they promote hatred more than fear and surrender (Serbia). Russia and Iran has already been slapped with the sanctions stick. And the threat of war? EVERYONE knew that wasn't happening. The State Department...just a ****ing mess with no cred and no morale post Bush. You gotta kiss and make up with your friends after being an obnoxious CIA driven douche for 8 years. I agree that they were fluffy, but it's not like he inherited HW's White House.
So many strong misinformed opinion on this issue.. Assad control less than 20% of Syria ISIS/Nusra control 15% of Southern Syria The rest under the control of Free Syrian Army who fights on many fronts against :ISIS,Assad,Iranians ,Proxy Shia's militias and now Russian. Now why Russian stand behind Assad is clearly due to the following -Israeli's security , since 40 years he didn't fire a single bullet toward the occupied Julan heights . -Iranian General who was in charge of Syrian operation was relieved from his duty, Russian gave up on Iranians. -only small strip lane left before Syrian capital fall into the hand of oppositions -Its expected in the coming months Egypt is to join Russian while the Saudis might supply free Syrian army with anti craft missiles .
Russia are not going after ISIS only. They want to get in there is help Assad. Obama has been dropping bombs for a year and hasn't impacted ISIS at all. OP is a ****ing idiot, so your plan was to stay in Iraq forever? ISIS is around because the USA went into Iraq based on 3 lies.
Many Israelis hail from the old Soviet Union, so they have a heritage together. But, the reason they all went to Israel is because the Tsar and then the communists were persecuting them. So there may be some kinship, but there are very good reasons for Israel to distrust Russia.
My only disagreement with you is in the way you portray Islam. I think it is in need of reform the way Christianity went through reform. The difference today is that the weapons radicals have are a lot more scary and there is a willingness to throw aside rationality and harm to self to serve a cause. That's difficult to defeat and stand up against. I think we need a more pragmatic approach to the middle east that takes into consideration that people are what they are - grossly uneducated. And to combat that we need to ensure that power is held by no one. In Egypt Obama should have taken a less idealistic approach and worked to set-up a gov't that one group could not dominate. That would keep the groups from rebelling if they had enough power to have a reason to cooperate. Same in Iraq. Biggest mistake was creating a democracy vs. a republic where one house could be Sunni and the other Shia. That would force compromise and yet prevent one side from feeling disenfranchised from a national Iraqi identity.
