• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Syria Debacle

MMC said:
U.S., allies tell Russia to halt strikes on Syrian opposition.....

The United States and six allies on Friday called on Russia to cease what they said were attacks on the Syrian opposition and civilians, and expressed "deep concern" over Russia's military build-up in Syria.

In a joint statement, the United States, France, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Britain criticized Russian airstrikes that they said did not target the militant Islamic State group.

"These military actions constitute a further escalation and will only fuel more extremism and radicalization," they said.....snip~

U.S., allies tell Russia to halt strikes on Syrian opposition - Yahoo News

Putin should tell them all to explain just how his attacks on Jihadists will only fuel more extremism and radicalization. What will the Sunni now become more extreme and radicalized than what they already are? Russia's and Putin's answer is.....STFU!

He should make sure the French hears it with a double down to them, and especially you with your weak snivilin and constant whining around the planet. Quit interfering in everybody else's business.
Click to expand...

If Putin were indeed only attacking jihadis then I wouldn't mind. Unfortunately Russia's early sorties seemed focused on "our" (non-jihadi) rebels.
 
Jack Hays said:
If Putin were indeed only attacking jihadis then I wouldn't mind. Unfortunately Russia's early sorties seemed focused on "our" (non-jihadi) rebels.
Click to expand...


Mornin JH. :2wave: Well the Syrian Rebels are nothing more than some radicalized people and are extremists to, the majority of them.

Moreover Putin did go after Al Nusra. So that is targeting AQ. Hopefully he got some MB Cult followers that are all mixed in with this issue.



Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy.....


In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of. More than two years of violence have radicalized the armed opposition fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, leaving few groups that both share the political vision of the United States and have the military might to push it forward.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...eate-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
 
Jack Hays said:
Our administration's feckless, bumbling policy in Syria has produced a true debacle. The Middle East position for the U.S. won by Nixon and Kissinger in 1973 has been thrown away. There is no telling how long -- if ever -- it will take to repair BHO's damage.

Obama’s Syria debacle

Russia’s ruse was obvious from the beginning.

“Russia hits Assad’s foes, angering U.S.”
— Headline, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1


If it had the wit, the Obama administration would be not angered, but appropriately humiliated. President Obama has, once again, been totally outmaneuvered by Vladimir Putin. Two days earlier at the United Nations, Obama had welcomed the return, in force, of the Russian military to the Middle East — for the first time in decades — in order to help fight the Islamic State.
The ruse was transparent from the beginning. Russia is not in Syria to fight the Islamic State. The Kremlin was sending fighter planes, air-to-air missiles and SA-22 anti-aircraft batteries. Against an Islamic State that has no air force, no planes, no helicopters? . . .

Consider: When Obama became president, the surge in Iraq had succeeded and the United States had emerged as the dominant regional actor, able to project power throughout the region. Last Sunday, Iraq announced the establishment of a joint intelligence-gathering center with Iran, Syria and Russia, symbolizing the new “Shiite-crescent” alliance stretching from Iran across the northern Middle East to the Mediterranean, under the umbrella of Russia, the rising regional hegemon.
Russian planes roam free over Syria attacking Assad’s opposition as we stand by helpless. Meanwhile, the U.S. secretary of state beseeches the Russians to negotiate “de-conflict” arrangements — so that we and they can each bomb our own targets safely. It has come to this.
Why is Putin moving so quickly and so brazenly? Because he’s got only 16 more months to push on the open door that is Obama. He knows he’ll never again see an American president such as this — one who once told the General Assembly that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” and told it again Monday of “believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion.” . . .

Wouldn’t you take advantage of these last 16 months if you were Putin, facing a man living in a faculty-lounge fantasy world? Where was Obama when Putin began bombing Syria? Leading a U.N. meeting on countering violent extremism.
Seminar to follow.
Click to expand...

Putin has stepped into a quagmire worse than Afghanistan which we have avoided. I wish him luck while he drains his already stretched treasury to prop up a worthless hated dictator.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War has been confirmed by the United Nations. The deadliest attacks were the Ghouta attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the Khan al-Asal attack in the suburbs of Aleppo in March 2013. Several other attacks have been alleged, reported and/or investigated.

A U.N. fact-finding mission and a UNHRC Commission of Inquiry have simultaneously investigated the attacks. The U.N. mission found likely use of the nerve agent Sarin in the case of Khan Al-Asal (19 March 2013), Saraqib (29 April 2013), Ghouta (21 August 2013), Jobar (24 August 2013) and Ashrafiyat Sahnaya (25 August 2013). The UNHRC commission later confirmed the use of Sarin in the Khan al-Asal, Saraqib and Ghouta attacks, but did not mention the Jobar and the Ashrafiyat Sahnaya attacks.
The UNHRC commission also found that the Sarin used in the Khan al-Asal attack bore "the same unique hallmarks" as the Sarin used in the Ghouta attack and indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to chemicals from the Syrian Army's stockpile. . . . ."
Click to expand...

Once again, all you did was link to a Wikipedia page. I provided information that came out after the Ghouta incident. The UN mission didn't argue about who did it, the only purpose was to find if such a thing had occurred. (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45856#.Vg_kRZcUDCY)
 
MMC said:
Mornin JH. :2wave: Well the Syrian Rebels are nothing more than some radicalized people and are extremists to, the majority of them.

Moreover Putin did go after Al Nusra. So that is targeting AQ. Hopefully he got some MB Cult followers that are all mixed in with this issue.



Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy.....


In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of. More than two years of violence have radicalized the armed opposition fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, leaving few groups that both share the political vision of the United States and have the military might to push it forward.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...eate-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
Click to expand...

There are thousands who cooperate with the radicals out of necessity, but are not radicals themselves.
 
iguanaman said:
Putin has stepped into a quagmire worse than Afghanistan which we have avoided. I wish him luck while he drains his already stretched treasury to prop up a worthless hated dictator.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Once again, all you did was link to a Wikipedia page. I provided information that came out after the Ghouta incident. The UN mission didn't argue about who did it, the only purpose was to find if such a thing had occurred. (United Nations News Centre - ‘Clear and convincing’ evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, UN team reports)
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia page was last updated on 15 September 2015, and includes no mention of any credible challenge to the UN report.
 
Jack Hays said:
There are thousands who cooperate with the radicals out of necessity, but are not radicals themselves.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain away that most of the Leadership spread around looking for a life under Sharia Law. But it does explain where a lot of the influence comes from.



Most Syrian rebel fighters do not want democracy and the country's civil war is producing ever worse atrocities and increasing radicalization, independent U.N. investigators said on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters in Paris, Brazilian expert Paulo Pinheiro said his team of investigators had documented horrific crimes on both sides, although the scale of those committed by President Bashar al-Assad's forces was greater. "It was said the rebels were angels, but there is only a minority of fighters with a democratic history who believe in the Syrian mosaic and want a state for all," he said. "The majority of rebels are very far from having democratic thoughts and have other aspirations."

Pinheiro leads an independent team of some two dozen experts mandated by the United Nations that documents crimes committed during the conflict, in which at least 80,000 people have been killed. "The report is dreadful in terms of a combination of secularization, radicalization and an escalation in violations of human rights and laws of war," he said. Both government forces and armed rebels are committing war crimes, including killings and torture, spreading terror among civilians in the more than two-year conflict.....snip~

U.N. investigators say most Syria rebels not seeking democracy | Reuters
 
Jack Hays said:
The Wikipedia page was last updated on 15 September 2015, and includes no mention of any credible challenge to the UN report.
Click to expand...

And I presented a credible challenge to the UN report using MSM.

Just because it isn't on Wikipedia doesn't mean it isn't true.
 
Jack Hays said:
U.S. won’t directly confront Russia in Syria, Obama says
The U.S. president approved new measures against the Islamic State but predicted a “quagmire” for Russia.


Click to expand...

Hmm. Yeah, I was wondering about that.

This is starting to look like Afghanistan, Russian occupation, and CIA supply of anti-aircraft weapons.

Should the US go that route, hopefully having learned from how well it turned out last time, the US will come in with advisers and support to establish a democratic government after Russia pulls out, assuming they will eventually.
 
MMC said:
That doesn't explain away that most of the Leadership spread around looking for a life under Sharia Law. But it does explain where a lot of the influence comes from.



Most Syrian rebel fighters do not want democracy and the country's civil war is producing ever worse atrocities and increasing radicalization, independent U.N. investigators said on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters in Paris, Brazilian expert Paulo Pinheiro said his team of investigators had documented horrific crimes on both sides, although the scale of those committed by President Bashar al-Assad's forces was greater. "It was said the rebels were angels, but there is only a minority of fighters with a democratic history who believe in the Syrian mosaic and want a state for all," he said. "The majority of rebels are very far from having democratic thoughts and have other aspirations."

Pinheiro leads an independent team of some two dozen experts mandated by the United Nations that documents crimes committed during the conflict, in which at least 80,000 people have been killed. "The report is dreadful in terms of a combination of secularization, radicalization and an escalation in violations of human rights and laws of war," he said. Both government forces and armed rebels are committing war crimes, including killings and torture, spreading terror among civilians in the more than two-year conflict.....snip~

U.N. investigators say most Syria rebels not seeking democracy | Reuters
Click to expand...

Dated 29 May 2013. A lot of non-jihadi rebels can be trained in two years and four months.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hmm. Yeah, I was wondering about that.

This is starting to look like Afghanistan, Russian occupation, and CIA supply of anti-aircraft weapons.

Should the US go that route, hopefully having learned from how well it turned out last time, the US will come in with advisers and support to establish a democratic government after Russia pulls out, assuming they will eventually.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan turned out just fine. Taliban did not come to power for six or seven years after we left, for reasons unrelated to our program.
 
Jack Hays said:
Afghanistan turned out just fine. Taliban did not come to power for six or seven years after we left, for reasons unrelated to our program.
Click to expand...

If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that the post-Russian Afghanistan years, the years where the CIA weapons still flooded the country, and the US policy was to just walk away, that those decisions and actions were just fine?

Please, not criticizing here, as you clearly know more than I, but I want to understand your position on this better.

General case coverage on this, at least as far as I can recall, was that the US walking away during that time gave precursors to the Taliban coming in and taking over. Not the case?
 
eohrnberger said:
If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that the post-Russian Afghanistan years, the years where the CIA weapons still flooded the country, and the US policy was to just walk away, that those decisions and actions were just fine?

Please, not criticizing here, as you clearly know more than I, but I want to understand your position on this better.

General case coverage on this, at least as far as I can recall, was that the US walking away during that time gave precursors to the Taliban coming in and taking over. Not the case?
Click to expand...

Weapons of all kinds flooded the country. That would have been the case with or without the CIA. The Taliban came to power for reasons rooted in Afghan history, and there was no practical role for the US that could/would have had any effect on that. Post 9/11 we exerted maximum influence in Afghanistan for thirteen years (and counting) and the Taliban is still potent.
 
Jack Hays said:
Weapons of all kinds flooded the country. That would have been the case with or without the CIA. The Taliban came to power for reasons rooted in Afghan history, and there was no practical role for the US that could/would have had any effect on that. Post 9/11 we exerted maximum influence in Afghanistan for thirteen years (and counting) and the Taliban is still potent.
Click to expand...

OK.

Hopefully the Afghan government and security forces are strong enough and willful enough (with US support) to continue to hold them at bay. There is no need to repeat the exercise of beating them back once again, but may become necessary, should the Taliban and other Muslim extremists once again manifest themselves as they did before.
 
Jack Hays said:
Dated 29 May 2013. A lot of non-jihadi rebels can be trained in two years and four months.
Click to expand...

There is more, and you know that most were caught by Other factions in Syria.

 
Syria showdown looms for Obama.....

The world is about to find out just how far President Obama will go to kick Bashar al-Assad out of Syria. The White House has insisted for years that the strongman needs to step down, but so far he hasn’t budged.

"We are not going to cooperate with a Russian campaign to simply try to destroy anybody who is disgusted and fed up with Mr. Assad's behavior," Obama said in a Friday afternoon news conference from the White House. “Eventually, Syria will fall. The Assad regime will fall."

Obama’s comments come amid growing fears of a proxy war in Syria and with many scratching their heads at what the White House wants to achieve. While acknowledging its differences with Russia, though, the Obama administration has showed some willingness to bend......snip~

Syria showdown looms for Obama | TheHill


Yep BO, and his team have showed some willingness to bend.....although really it is more like Bend ovaaaaa!
 
MMC said:
Syria showdown looms for Obama.....

“Eventually, Syria will fall. The Assad regime will fall."

Obama’s comments come amid growing fears of a proxy war in Syria and with many scratching their heads at what the White House wants to achieve....

Yep BO, and his team have showed some willingness to bend.....although really it is more like Bend ovaaaaa!
Click to expand...
Obama 'hopes for change' but is clueless...It's amazing he's still clinging to "assad must go"
 
annata said:
Obama 'hopes for change' but is clueless...It's amazing he's still clinging to "assad must go"
Click to expand...

Just think of like this AT. :2wave: For the next Decade they will be able to blame BO peep just like Bush. But it will be worse for the Peep, as he will be considered a weak and feckless leader. Who thought more about himself than any others.
 
I really don't know where to begin with this non-sense. So, why not start from the beginning, shall we? Here we go...

Our administration's feckless, bumbling policy in Syria has produced a true debacle.
Click to expand...
Only those who haven't been paying attention to events in Syria, as well as, are completely unaware of our national security interests in Syria would make such a boneheaded statement. Just so we're clear what those core interests are, from the POTUS speech to the U.N. General Assembly (9/24/2013):

The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region.

We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.

We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.

We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address the root causes of terror. But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attack, we will take direct action.

And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

There's no fecklessness taking place here. It's knowing the limits of your reach where international policy and partnership alignments are drawn. To that, let's be clear: The U.S. and Syria are NOT allies. Russia and Syria, however, are! But I'll stop there for the moment and let that sink in.
The Middle East position for the U.S. won by Nixon and Kissinger in 1973 has been thrown away.
Click to expand...
Interesting, considering that now after all these years people from political pundits to GOP presidential hopefuls themselves are now admitting that had the tyrannical dictator known as Saddam Hussein had remained in power, none of what's currently taking place in Iraq or Syria would have happened. Why? Because ISIS/ISIL would never have come to be! Funny how one man's absence coupled with the foolishness of another to dismantle a sovereign nation's military could led to such disastrous consequences. Of course, when the security of Iraq is spoken of today the reference is always surrounding by the idea of not having left a residual force behind - a "police and training force" whose mission wasn't to go after those who fostered sectarian violence, but rather to merely police the streets and train local police and military recruits. Tell me how the rules of engagement were to work under those circumstances for our boys left behind as "peacekeepers"?

There is no telling how long -- if ever -- it will take to repair BHO's damage.
Click to expand...
Revisionist history here considering that the War in Iraq was all but over by the time Obama became POTUS. Therefore, I really don't see what damage his decisions on issuing military strategy directives in Iraq led to the chaos that was the Iraq War. If folks wish to continue pointing the finger at troop withdrawal, go right ahead. But let's not forget, that plan was already set in motion before Obama came into office. Try again...

Russia’s ruse was obvious from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Really? If the gig was so obvious, I wonder when Krauthammer himself first saw this coming considering that his favorite words in the sarcastic partisan lexicon seems to be the word "ruse" as illustrated in these two articles:

The Fruits of Weakness - Charles Krauthammer - Page full

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c2a7d6-686f-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

From the looks of it, every liberal action he believes doesn't measure up to a full throated display of American superiority and military might in his eyes must be "a ruse". Good grieve. :roll:

Why anyone would take this man seriously is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Color-coding Syria[/h] The high cost of avoiding war in the nation.
Richard Cohen OCT 5
Click to expand...



Heya JH. :2wave: It looks like the left still hasn't figured out why the feckless BO peep drew a red line in Syria and backed away from it. They weren't hip to the fact that the Peep was in secret negotiations with Irans Leader, and he didn't want to upset them and lose his deal.

But don't worry once a Liberal rag puts it out. Then they will accept it. Although, it might be after the election. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom