• 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!

Donald Trump signals he will end US support for Syrian rebels [W:37]

Kelfuma said:
Donald Trump signals he will end US support for Syrian rebels - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk



FINALLY, dammit, some people can just be that stupid. How on earth was helping the rebels ever going to stop the war??!!! Screw freedom fighters.
Click to expand...

" Freedom fighters " ? You mean the Al Qaeda franchise " Al Nusra " ??

Obama's disastrous ME policy agenda of replacing decades old secular Govts with Govt run by Islamic fundamentalist under the pretense of spreading " Democracy " is finally coming to end

Couldn't happen soon enough.
 
The problem is arming the rebels sounds nice until the weapons come up missing and used against us.
And if Assad is toppled who replaces him? Another brutal Russian puppet.
 
Cardinal said:
Without US support for a side we lose out on a seat at the table if "our side" wins. Maybe that would have worked, maybe the rebels would have just been another Mujahadeen. We'll never know now.
Click to expand...


Syria has nothing we want, and has a port Russia will fight to keep. We don't have an easily playable hand given that we have little to gain.
 
chuckiechan said:
Syria has nothing we want, and has a port Russia will fight to keep. We don't have an easily playable hand given that we have little to gain.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. Every country has something we want, especially in a region that is strategically and politically so volatile.
 
Re: Donald Trump signifies he will end US support for Syrian rebels despite their ple

Jack Fabulous said:
I hope you turn away from the hate and accept Donald Trump as your personal savior.

We're all praying for you!
Click to expand...

freaking smart ass.

Long day swimming in the cesspool of humanity (went grocery shopping for the month) and it sucked. I needed a good laugh. Thanks.
 
Re: Donald Trump signifies he will end US support for Syrian rebels despite their ple

Trump's policy is totally right - this is the quickest way to end the war. From the start, there was that growing danger that Al-Nusra was going to help pick up where AlQaeda left off in fighting the USA later on.

Fine, the Syrian forces are going to mercilessly exterminate these people, but that will help to ensure stability well into the future.

After Saddam was ousted from Kuwait in Desert Storm, some Arabs in southern Iraq launched a failed uprising against Saddam's govt, but were put down ruthlessly by the remnants of Saddam's forces, even with a No Fly Zone in place.

I just hope that the next time there's a Democrat govt in the Whitehouse, they don't somehow try to revive the Syrian conflict just for the sake of overturning Trump's decision, and throw the place into chaos again.
 
Cardinal said:
Don't be ridiculous. Every country has something we want, especially in a region that is strategically and politically so volatile.
Click to expand...

Like what? Throw the Russians out? That would be a fight. It's basically their only warm water port, and it is Strategically located.
 
chuckiechan said:
Like what? Throw the Russians out? That would be a fight. It's basically their only warm water port, and it is Strategically located.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question (and provided two possible answers, at any rate).
 
Cardinal said:
You just answered your own question (and provided two possible answers, at any rate).
Click to expand...
Most people do some sort of cost/benefit ratio. The Washington establishment do not. Deny the Russians a warm water port, even though we otherwise have no strategic interests in the region vs/Nuclear War with Russia.

Hillary and the rest of the establishment elite said to themselves yep, Nuclear War with Russia. Let's do it!
 
One reason the U.S. has been opposing the Assad regime is that it has informally allied itself with the Islamist regime in Tehran. Considering the influence Iran's proxy Hizballah has in Lebanon, a Syrian government which sends arms and advisers from a nation dedicated to Israel's destruction into Lebanon is cause for concern.

I have never thought Syria was a good place to resist Iranian expansion, when it could have been done directly. If the current President had confronted Iran from the beginning with a credible threat of destroying its nuclear weapons program from the air, instead of appeasing if for the past seven years and more, the U.S. would not need to worry as much about Iranian influence in Syria and the growth of Sunni jihadist groups it has encouraged. If, as he could have done, Mr. Obama had insisted on leaving a substantial military force in Iraq-- say a somewhat smaller version of the force the U.S. left in South Korea in 1953--the U.S. would need to worry even less about Syria.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Everyone needs to stop the personal attacks and address the topic.
 
It was never meant to do anything but punish Russia for being 'naughty' in Ukraine. It was geopolitical chess being played by novices, and they predictably screwed everything up.

The original goal was to counterbalance Russia. That started with NATO expansion dozens of years ago, which Kennan rightly criticized as completely counterproductive and unnecessary. This eventually promoted a backlash when we took it too far (to the point where Russia had a lot to lose, and we didn't have the will to actually back our sabre-rattling up with anything substantial). Russia incited violence in South Ossetia and Donetsk, then seized the Crimea and the Black Fleet base in Sevastopol, as they had yet to complete construction of their new base in Novorossiysk when movements towards Europe were made by Ukraine. Russia only really possesses access to warm water points in East Prussia, the Black Sea, and the Far East. They lease a base in Tartus, Syria, making the country vital to Russian interests as this is the only base outside of a NATO-controlled choke point (Bosporus and Dardanelles or Straits of Denmark) in the West. So, the basic thinking is that we would 'punish' Russia' by funding rebels in Syria to overthrow Assad. This failed for the same reason that NATO expansion did: the policy makers were looking at things from a non-realist perspective. Russia is a rational actor, they had much more to lose here than we did, they KNEW that they had more to lose, and they knew that we knew, so they called the bluff, and now Syria is a nightmare, Europe is being destabilized in a large part by the refugee crisis (which benefits Putin, herp derp Hillary). Now the entire region is a mess, with conflicting interests between Turkey, Russia, Iran, and Israel, and we're sitting in the middle dumbfounded. We will have egg on our face if we make the correct move (what Trump proposes), but we need to do it anyway, and use recognition of Russian control of Crimea as a bargaining chip. Russia has no interest in annexing Donetsk, so we also have a chance to resolve that conflict and try to return things as close to the status quo ante as possible. The hardest part will be restoring the balance of power in the Middle East, as the Kurdish problem will be difficult to deal with, which will distract and destabilize Turkey at a time when they ought to be acting as a strong firewall against Russian influence. They share an ethnic group but are comprised of three different polities, all of which have divergent goals and methods, and none of which can be 'put back into the bag' at this point. And we have to manage alllll of this while pivoting to China and trying to manage the brewing conflicts in South Asia.
 
I was against Iraq, and Afghanistan, and I left the GOP because of the two wars.

Now Syria will be Trump's mess........... thanks to Odumbo's broken promises of not militarily intervening overseas during his initial campaign.

But after 5 countries, he's proved to the entire world what the meaning of "con job" is............Chicago Style!
 
Thoreau72 said:
My bet is that on this issue Donald will walk it back and submit to Israel's wishes to destabilize and balkanize Syria.

He has already walked back the Obamacare repeal to some degree, and he will on this issue too.
Click to expand...

Will listening to Israel bring greater peace to the Middle East?
 
Like Iraq who is the enemy? Who are the rebels? Who is the enemy today and will they be the enemy tomorrow? Get out of their all together and let people rule as long as they can avoid coups and or assignations.
 
Syria: War of choice, same as Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. Not my choice and probably not yours. We're peons, not movers and shakers. So who's choice? Captialism/Corporatism and who profits? First profits of war always go to Big Energy Corporations and does that make them cheerleaders for War; Does a cat have an ass? Does Big Energy have political power? Why do you think we have not converted to 100% Renewable Energy? Second profits of war go to the MIC and does that make them cheerleaders for war? The Military Industrial Corporate Complex is the "busness of war, and business is good." Reputable (?) Think Tanks are set up to cheerlead the positions of both of these collaborators and advise (conspire) our leaders with position papers, arm bending and money. Third profits must go to the Mainstream Media because they are a business and they support these two driving forces of war. That will be as obvious as the skewed polls as we begin to straighten out the Syria debacle. Who pays all those lobbyists for wars. No-brainer, one and two. Wars, and in this case, wars of choice have been delivering destruction, chaos, death and misery accross the MidEast, home of OIL, don't ya' know? Pipelines (energy throttles), wells, geopolitical power plays, price controls, and all at Big Money/Big Banking levels. I think we are going to help the "good guys" again. The same analogy applies to the current Cold War, initiated by the USA against Russia, with the same disgraceful players. I will add one player. The CIA has infiltrated all levels of gov't, media and finance to our detriment. Time to clean house.
 
reinoe said:
You know what I find more ridiculous? The MSM spin on this. The "despite their pleas" line. The MSM has reached bottom of the barrel status and then borrowed a hole into the Earths crust to sink into new depths of spin and propaganda. Yet another example of how the MSM has learned absolutely nothing from this election.
Click to expand...

This is a British outlet, and I don't think anyone would disagree that the rebels have been asking for Western help.
cpwill said:
Those rebels have cut ISIL off from their access to the border (a strategic requirement), and are currently advancing on Raqqa (ISIL's capital), but hey, Facts Schmacts!!!!
Click to expand...
If by "rebels" you mean "Turkish tanks, artillery, air strikes and special forces whose main goal is to prevent the Kurds from connecting from Manbij to Afrin," then sure. These same rebels were consistently humiliated by the Islamic State before the Turkish intervention and still stall when they meet actual resistance. Unless Erdogan decides to commit much more fully to the intervention (and I'm not sure why he hasn't done so, to be honest) I have little confidence in Operation Euphrates Shield as a measure against the Islamic State, though I do agree that cutting off the border as well as establishing areas where refugees can be resettled are good things.
cpwill said:
ISF in Mosul, US and Turkey-backed rebels approaching Raqqa.

I'm a consistent critic of the Obama foreign policy, but yes, we are.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's important to not conflate the fight against the Islamic State with the civil war between the government and opposition; the latter is so important and so much more bloody that I'd argue the former is largely a sideshow. We are beating the Islamic State pretty handily, but unless we actually increase our aid to the rebels the ability to shape events in Syria as a whole has gone over to the Russians.
sanman said:
Fine, the Syrian forces are going to mercilessly exterminate these people, but that will help to ensure stability well into the future.
Click to expand...

That's not how it's worked in Syria. Assad's father brutally put down a Muslim Brotherhood uprising in the 1980s, yet here we are. Unless the the security state and the Alawite domination of the government are ended, any regime victory will most likely be temporary.
 
Re: Donald Trump signifies he will end US support for Syrian rebels despite their ple

cpwill said:
Donald Trump, who criticized Obama for pulling out of Iraq when we were winning, now promises to do the same in Syria.

Huzzah.
Click to expand...

There is no end game for the US in Syria against ISIS. ISIS leaves the battlefield and will pop up somewhere else. Russia can do the same damn thing we are, and in fact be better at it, and it won't cost us a dime.
 
Re: Donald Trump signifies he will end US support for Syrian rebels despite their ple

austrianecon said:
There is no end game for the US in Syria against ISIS. ISIS leaves the battlefield and will pop up somewhere else. Russia can do the same damn thing we are, and in fact be better at it, and it won't cost us a dime.
Click to expand...

ISIS' central argument is that they governed territory. They can't go covert like AQ did, and remain who they are. That's not to say that the Virtual Caliphate won't exist, but it's going to be severely damaged.

As for "endgames" :shrug: we win, they lose, or they win, and we lose and convert to Islam. Those are the two endgames on the table. It takes both sides to end a war, and they aren't interested.
 
reinoe said:
WTF?? Who in God's name wanted Syria as an ally? We have no strategic interests in the region other than to stop ISIS.
Click to expand...

That is a lie or we wouldn't have stuck our noses in to how Assad dealt with "terrorist". It's all about Oil and Gas pipeline directly to Europe, the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. Qatar was the main backers of the rebels and fostering a "revolution" in Syria and our buddies. Also gives a chance for the US and NATO to cut Russia off from sailing the 7 seas with ease.. as Russia's only Naval port outside of Russia is in Syria (Tartus).
 
MadLib said:
That's not how it's worked in Syria. Assad's father brutally put down a Muslim Brotherhood uprising in the 1980s, yet here we are. Unless the the security state and the Alawite domination of the government are ended, any regime victory will most likely be temporary.
Click to expand...

Come on - from 1980s until now is a long stretch without conflict. Sure, I remember that Syrian Army shelled the city of Hama in 1982. Nobody over there dared show a peep against Assad all this time.
 
Thoreau72 said:
My bet is that on this issue Donald will walk it back and submit to Israel's wishes to destabilize and balkanize Syria.

He has already walked back the Obamacare repeal to some degree, and he will on this issue too.
Click to expand...

Nah, Trump won't walk it back. Trump, Israel, Syria and Russia will come to an agreement. Syria has no ill will towards Israel and had be talking for years about a peace deal. Both countries are economically tied each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom