Also I forgot to say. Turkish authorities changed the names of Kurdish cities after Turkey was found. Consider this. One morning you wake up and New York is no more New York. It is now called Brunskaya. And you can't name your kids George. If you do, they won't give birth certificate. So you call your son Dimitri. Imagine this for a moment. I am done. I will now leave this thread to policy experts like Brad and byz etc.
Istanbul was Constantinople. I wonder if the Indians would truly give a fuck today if Massapequa was renamed Leningrad but they were allowed to keep it.
Honestly this could be our queue to slip out in the darkness of the night like it was Baltimore and we were the Colts. Let Russia get their kids killed fighting these animals. They've got more to lose in the area and I'm not sure the US really has anything to gain. I still think it's in the best interest of America to keep Assad in power, have we not learned anything from Iraq or Libya?
Diplomacy has not be the correct path in the case of Ukraine and Russia. The correct thing to do would have been to arm Ukraine and stop the Russian aggression, we did not do it. The CIA posts are funny, but the GRU and SVR have been running laps around and laughing at the CIA for a decade.
I think Iran is a key factor there too. And they are capable of taking out ISIS. Let them do it. I'd rather have them there than the Russians.
Iran and Assad are allies, honestly I say let them handle the problem. The US should not be dictating to anybody who should lead their country. I'm sure there is some corporate reason the US will stay involved but it's not our problem and I think Obama has done what he should be doing and not listening to these hawks who only want to go to war.
I think it's pretty clear that it's not in our interests to be the people who knocked Assad out of power and thereby own the aftermath. Our history in the region is really bad in terms of owning the aftermath of our interventions. Iran is our sworn enemy after one such operation in the 50's and Iraq is a bleeding disaster that is moving into Iran's camp more and more each year after another. Taking down Assad would be pure hubris on our part and we'd likely be punished for it severely as events swung into motion afterwards. Assad is a brutal dictator who oppresses his own people but he's not our dictator, Syria is a rare case where we're not in any way responsible for the brutality and massacres. This should all have been managed through the Russians in the first place. When Assad used chemical weapons on his own people the diplomacy should have been quiet and direct and with the Russians. A pledge not to interfere in their client affairs if they did the right thing and got Assad to give up the chemical weapons. We're in a mini-Cold War with Putin at the moment and we need to find some way to back it down and get back to more normal relations. We keep messing with the Russian client states and in their indisputable sphere of influence on their borders and then we can't understand why it's so hard to get them to cooperate when something like nuclear proliferation in Iran comes up.
As long as weapon suppliers have a customer in Syria the means for war/supply chain/fighting will never end. The United States will continue to cooperate and supply "allies" (Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Syrian Rebels, and Kurdistan) in that order. Egypt is already beginning to align with Russia...this will change back and forth, but the Russian influence is present in Egypt now, today and growing. Turkey and Kurdistan will fight until one is gone. Baghdad will eventually be taken over by Iran Syrian Rebels and Assad/Russia will fight until one is gone. The regions stability continues to falter and if/when the attack is spilled over into Jordan, Lebanon... and finally pressed so far...into Israel... This world will come to end.
America has no justifiable interest that comes anywhere close to Russia's interest in the Ukraine. Imagine if the Russians started dicking around with Canada.
U.S. support for Syria rebels illegal: Putin © REUTERS/Alexei Nikolsky/RIA Novosti/Kremlin Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting on agriculture in Rostov region, Russia, September 24, 2015. Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday branded U.S. support for rebel forces in Syria as illegal and ineffective, saying U.S.-trained rebels were leaving to join Islamic State with weapons supplied by Washington. In an interview with U.S. networks recorded ahead of a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Putin said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad deserved international support as he was fighting terrorist organizations. Obama and Putin are scheduled to talk on Monday after Putin addresses the United Nations, although White House and Kremlin officials have disagreed on what the two leaders will discuss and even who initiated the meeting. "In my opinion, provision of military support to illegal structures runs counter to the principles of modern international law and the United Nations Charter," he said in an excerpt of an interview with U.S. television networks CBS and PBS released by the Kremlin. Russia has stepped up its military involvement in Syria in recent weeks, with U.S. officials accusing Moscow of sending combat aircraft, tanks and other equipment to help the Syrian army. Russia's sudden military build-up this month in support of Assad and a refugee crisis that has spilled over from the region into Europe have lent new urgency to attempts to resolve the Syria conflict. The new U.S. tack on Syria could bring together Russia, Saudi Arabia and countries such as Turkey and Qatar, which support Syrian opposition groups. U.S.-Russian relations have slumped to a post-Cold War low over the Ukraine crisis, though the two sides shares concerns about the threat posed by Islamic State, while disagreeing on the approach. Putin says Damascus should be included in international efforts to fight (IS), a demand the United States rejects, and he criticized U.S. plans to train up to 5,400 Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State. "It turns out that only 60 of these fighters have been properly trained, and as few as four or five people actually carry weapons," he said. "The rest of them have deserted with the American weapons to join ISIS," he said referring to Islamic State. Critics have urged Obama to be more decisive in the Middle East and Syria, where the United Nations has said 250,000 people have died after four years of conflict, and say lack of a clear American policy has given Islamic State opportunities to expand. Putin said Russia's support for the Assad government was based on the U.N. Charter. "We have been providing assistance to legitimate government entities only," he said. "As of today it has taken the form of weapons supplies to the Syrian government, personnel training and humanitarian aid to the Syrian people." (Writing by Jack Stubbs; Editing by Jon Boyle) http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-support-for-syria-rebels-illegal-putin/ar-AAeQomP?ocid=spartandhp
Well if the USA was sending in covert agents into Canada and attempting to unify parts of Canada into the USA, and Canada was asking Russia for help, they could arm Canada. What Putler is doing in Ukraine is criminal, and not getting involved is foolish. The Cold War isn't over, and Russia isn't even a frienemey like China, they're just an enemy.
Right, and we would claim that our support for freedom and democracy gives us justifiable interest, however our track record in overthrowing democracies and backing dictators makes us just look laughably hypocritical and the true champion of double standards instead of what we pretend to support when it aligns with our other national interests. If you support freedom and democracy you support it everywhere, not just where it's convenient. If you fight against dictatorship to the point of meddling in other countries internal affairs and to the point of outright warfare at times you do that everywhere, not just where it's convenient. Putin, who is a fairly nasty fellow in terms of how he deals with dissent and foreign policy looks at us as hypocrites who are also fairly nasty in the way we deal with dissent and foreign policy and he's at least half right there. America's foreign policy at least as far as I can see it from 30 years of watching it fairly closely is that might makes right and double standards are just fine as long as you are mighty.
Russians in Syria is bad for the world, but let them die there. Nothing will be gained from "winning" in Syria. Many more people will continue to die there. Isis will fail and we always knew this... They have no ships or jets, they are a joke faction laying waste to a country in a civil war (Syria) and a country that USA toppled and abandoned (Iraq). Without real support they are unable to stand on their own as a nation... Isis will collapse. Iran is already beginning to claim parts of Iraq... They will eventually take Baghdad...if they gain control of nuclear weapons they will become a danger/threat to the world We fail to utilize our one true ally in Kurdistan.. We do not even legitimately recognize them as a nation, the one effective ally against Isis on the ground....a terrible, sad statement, but we will allow/enable Turkey to control them. Jordan and Lebanon today are largely ignored by USA. Our influence has shrunk in both nations. It's hard to tell what the map will look like in 10years. Israel... The last glimmer of hope in the region. Democracy, freedom, and power. ..Hated on every one of its borders, yet too powerful to challenge...eventually the aggressors will come. Fighting will spill over boarders and it is impossible to think Israel will not become a focal target. Iran wants Israel's distruction, to force their version of the end of times. An Iran with nuclear weapons may succeed in their endeavor. Israel has nukes, and will use them if forced to defend their existence. Best case scenario the fighting is isolated to Syria and parts northern Iraq and Turkey and Iran. We stop sending supplies, money and weapons/the means to make war... And the aggressors are limited in their ability to create havoc/destruction. ... A sound leader establishes his or her self within the Middle Eastern culture and is able to resonate peace, influence change and open minds to reform in a largely radical society.
Interesting. So what becomes of our little city (embassy) we build in Iraq then? Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk
I usually just stick to criticizing American foreign policy but Putin sure is a great example of the proverbial "cookie full of arsenic." Isn't he? At least he doesn't have to hide his secret admiration of Stalin and Andropov any more. The Russians have that saying about their history.... "and then things got worse!" Compared to the worst excesses of the Czar's Okhrana, Stalin's Red Purges, and the KGB, Putin is worthy of admiration!
We're going to turn Putin into the freedom fighter standing up to the excesses of the "Evil American Empire." Just watch. All empires are evil to the people they rule over without recourse. Not getting into that position is kind of key in not falling into disrepair and disrepute afterwards.
Well, the world community cannot just allow Putin to go into now independent countries of the former Soviet Union and take over under the premise that there are Russian citizens living there (who they are protecting). So what do you do about it. Sanctions, diplomacy, etc. Which is what's going on right now. The hawks say the US should be the world leader and be respected. This is the way you lead and get respect. But a "new cold war" seems to be out there. As for Syria it looks like there could be a new coalition. To take out ISIS and support the Shiites.
The US has intervened in small countries that were never part of the US under exactly that premise and with the unstated goal, usually achieved, of overthrowing the government and replacing it with a subservient government more friendly to our interests. We've done this over and over again during the last three generations. The absolutely indisputable case is Reagan's invasion of Grenada in 1983. Other similar cases include Panama, the Dominican Republic, Cuba (repulsed at the Bay of Pigs) and Haiti. Again, it's a double standard. When the US invades it's to support democracy and freedom and somehow noble, even when it has nothing to do with democracy and freedom but is just our desire to change the form of the government to one more favorable to us. When the Russians invade it is evil tyrannical forces trying to roll over the little guys and impose their evil will on those countries. It's exactly the same thing. We shouldn't represent ourselves as noble freedom fighting forces when all we're doing is trying to overthrow the government to put in one we like better. Russia doesn't make any bones about it. They say "this government is in our sphere of influence and we don't like them and we're going to change them." The US should at least be honest about our interventions.
