|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
U.S. Expanding its Role in Syria 2
#24802108 - 11/23/17 11:43 AM (6 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
From the Washington Post:
Quote:
The Trump administration is expanding its goals in Syria beyond routing the Islamic State to include a political settlement of the country's civil war, a daunting and potentially open-ended commitment that could draw the United States into conflict with both Syria and Iran.
With forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies now bearing down on the last militant-controlled towns, the defeat of the Islamic State in Syria could be imminent -- along with an end to the U.S. justification for being there.
How shocking, right? When the justification for war disappears, simply shift to another one. War is big business. The Imperial machine marches on in an endless and unwinnable military and political conflict. When is enough enough?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 18 days
|
|
Exactly. War used to be a Republican thing, but both parties have embraced war since Clinton. Shameful.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 21,995
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
I can't think of a time where the US established a military presence somewhere and then left without being compelled to go.
-------------------- Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Seriously_trippin
Cosmic Guru Ganesh
Registered: 07/12/13
Posts: 14,643
Last seen: 22 hours, 33 minutes
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: From the Washington Post:
Quote:
The Trump administration is expanding its goals in Syria beyond routing the Islamic State to include a political settlement of the country's civil war, a daunting and potentially open-ended commitment that could draw the United States into conflict with both Syria and Iran.
With forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies now bearing down on the last militant-controlled towns, the defeat of the Islamic State in Syria could be imminent -- along with an end to the U.S. justification for being there.
How shocking, right? When the justification for war disappears, simply shift to another one. War is big business. The Imperial machine marches on in an endless and unwinnable military and political conflict. When is enough enough?
It's not shocking at all in fact it's expected
-------------------- R.I.P Zombi3, Blue Helix Modest Mouse Zappa Slothie That Kid With The face ShLong Le Canard split_by_nine & Big Worm Forever Etched in the sands of time in the shroomery and ever so beloved and deeply missed by many
|
Seriously_trippin
Cosmic Guru Ganesh
Registered: 07/12/13
Posts: 14,643
Last seen: 22 hours, 33 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Exactly. War used to be a Republican thing, but both parties have embraced war since Clinton. Shameful.
You mean the guy who refused to kill Osama while looking down the barrel (drone)
-------------------- R.I.P Zombi3, Blue Helix Modest Mouse Zappa Slothie That Kid With The face ShLong Le Canard split_by_nine & Big Worm Forever Etched in the sands of time in the shroomery and ever so beloved and deeply missed by many
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
|
Quote:
Seriously_trippin said: It's not shocking at all in fact it's expected
It was a stab at sarcasm, bro.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
chibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
Seriously_trippin said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Exactly. War used to be a Republican thing, but both parties have embraced war since Clinton. Shameful.
You mean the guy who refused to kill Osama while looking down the barrel (drone)
Clinton couldn't get approval to assassinate Bin Laden. When Clinton Administration wanted to kill Bin Laden the Republicans accused him of trying to distract people from his blow job with fear mongering.
It was pretty obvious that we were going to end up getting sucked into the West Asian war as soon as everybody decided that we had to punish Assad for using war gas (in 2013). People used to get really mad at me for pointing out that all it was going to do was result in mission creep, that we were probably just going to end up killing way more civilians than actual no-fooling bad guys and that way more people had been killed by conventional weapons anyway (which didn't really seem to bother anybody). Of course nobody likes it when you speak of these things in terms of infants being plastered to walls by their own bloody remains. Kind of takes the fun out of treating the whole thing like a theoretical circle jerk, in the fashion of whatever they teach in a political science class.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,633
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 hours, 49 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Exactly. War used to be a Republican thing, but both parties have embraced war since Clinton. Shameful.
Both parties succumb; interestingly , all of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century—World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam—were entered by Democratic administrations...way before Clinton
Edited by SirTripAlot (11/23/17 05:22 PM)
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,633
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 hours, 49 minutes
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: From the Washington Post:
Quote:
The Trump administration is expanding its goals in Syria beyond routing the Islamic State to include a political settlement of the country's civil war, a daunting and potentially open-ended commitment that could draw the United States into conflict with both Syria and Iran.
With forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies now bearing down on the last militant-controlled towns, the defeat of the Islamic State in Syria could be imminent -- along with an end to the U.S. justification for being there.
How shocking, right? When the justification for war disappears, simply shift to another one. War is big business. The Imperial machine marches on in an endless and unwinnable military and political conflict. When is enough enough?
There are diplomatic reasons as well (along with remaining relevant); This is a reaction to Putin:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/89872/how-vladimir-putin-became-the-middle-east-s-power-broker
Vladimir Putin has staked his claim to be a Middle East power-broker after pushing world leaders to agree a lasting peace in Syria.
The Russian president hosted his Syrian counterpart and ally Bashar al-Assad in the Black Sea resort of Sochi on Monday. The meeting with Assad, only the second time the Syrian leader has travelled abroad since the civil war started more than six years ago, “was apparently staged carefully to show off Putin’s claim to be the new power-broker in the Middle East”, says The Times.
Today, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, whose countries back opposing sides in the Syria conflict, will travel to Russia for a three-way meeting with Putin.
This is a remarkable turn-around for Assad, who has faced intense international pressure to stand down, and a triumph of diplomacy and military strength from Putin.
Russian forces, who began their invention in Syria two years, have been widely credited as turning the tide in Assad’s favour and to underscore their importance Assad praised military leaders in Sochi for “defending the territorial integrity of [his] country”.
Reuters says previous efforts to end the brutal war “have largely foundered because of bitter disagreements among players in the conflict, both inside and outside Syria, especially whether Assad himself should stay in power”.
It is a sign of Putin’s growing influence in the region that the decision whether Assad stays or goes is now almost entirely down to him. But while he may be feted by the Syrian regime, the intervention has come at a political cost for Putin at home.
According to a recent poll by the Levada Center, half of all Russians now believe the military operations in Syria should come to an end. As many as 32% believe the war could become a “new Afghanistan”, in reference to the brutal 10-year campaign which exhausted the Soviet Union in the 1980s and played a role in its collapse.
News of mounting Russian casualties, reportedly 131 in the first nine months of the year, “have added to the impetus for an end to the Russian operation”, says The Independent.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
chibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 15 days
|
Re: U.S. Expanding its Role in Syria [Re: SirTripAlot]
#24802675 - 11/23/17 05:39 PM (6 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Exactly. War used to be a Republican thing, but both parties have embraced war since Clinton. Shameful.
Both parties succumb; interestingly , all of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century—World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam—were entered by Democratic administrations...way before Clinton
Insipid shit-fighting is a real sign of maturity. I'm proud of both of you.
And what makes anybody think that Russia didn't have significant influence in the Near East already? Putin became a Mideast power broker by becoming the head of the government of a (relatively, at the absolute least) local hegemon.
|
|