Syria: We believe that Russia has the wrong strategy, says US

[zakk9]

Russia , Syria , Iraq and Iran formed a coalition, hence the disapprovement fom US.

US basically does not know what to do and is "worried " to make a wrong move.

Russia has also mobilised 150 000 troops which are moving in.

If US cooperates it means US will have to lift all sanctions from Russia in few months if US does not it risks an all out war.

Putin once again outplayed Obama, for Russia it is win- win situation because either sanctions get lifted or oil prices go up.

Loss of life is no concern to Putin, as Russia does not play by western moral rules.

I don't think the US, nor the other coalition partners, will cooperate with Russia. Your last statement is the scary part. And 100% true. Putin does what he wants and doesn't care about the humanitarian issues. Sadly. Probably not a great trait for a world leader????

Doesnt care about Humanitarian issues ?...bit rich isnt given, given the US just bombed a hospital into the ground in Afganistan

That hospital bombing was horrible. But to single out one event is perhaps not the best thing to do. The US probably provides more humanitarian support around the world than any other nation. Definitely more than Russia.

USA also bombs more nations and kills more people than any other nation on earth.

[craigt3365]

I shall make a few points.

Assad was a democratically elected prime minister of Syria.

I have read at least one person state that the majority of people didn't vote for him and so it was not democratic.

Then you can argue that 80% of the elected prime ministers are not democratically elected. Take the UK with Cameron as prime minister whom's party only got 36% of the vote.

The USA basically only has a choice of two parties (virtually the same) so clearly there is a majority.

I would suggest you ask any Syrian whether they were better off with asad running the country than how it became after the protests.

How the Syrian problem came about

Basically Qatar and Saudi wanted to build an oil/gas pipeline to West Europe through Syria and Turkey.

USA corporations would have got the contract.

Russia would have lost exports of oil and gas to western Europe.

Asad was asked by Saudi, Qatar and US to let them build a pipe line through Syria. Asked by Saudi, then USA government. Asad said NO !

It was decided that Asad had to go as he was not co-operating, much like Egypt, Iraq and Libyan leaders.

So the CIA trained up, armed and gave Saudi cash to some people to act as rebels / protesters against Syria.

They started to protest but unfortunately Asad fought back (probably with Russian help) and they were unable to bring down Asad.

These rebels gave up fighting Asad, but with CIA supplied equipment and Saudi money decided to call themselves ISIL and go and in effect loot Iraq. The result was that they took control of some oil fields and sold the oil and had even more money to continue.

USA had left things continue because it was a satisfactory position for USA

1) Syria was in economic crisis (like they did to Egypt, Iraq and Libya)

2) USA thought the price of oil would go up meaning fracking in the USA would be competitive (break even price for oil production is a barrel of oil being US$75)

3) liked the idea of Syrians fleeing to the EC creating economic and political problems in the EC.

Russian Involvement

Putin has basically, as usual, played a nice strategic game.

Putin wants the price of oil and gas to go up as it is important for the economy of Russia.

Putin has now told the world that he is sorting out ISIL because the USA clearly cannot. The fact is that the USA doesn't want the crisis to end (read reasons given above) and this is clear from:

1) how quickly ISIL are running from Syria within one week of Russia getting involved and yet USA could not get rid of ISIL in more than three years.

2) USA and the west are not helping Russia.

I would think that Putin's plan is to push ISIL into Iraq. Iraq then ask Russia and Iran help them to get rid of ISIL. Russia and Iran will then push ISIL into Saudi Arabia.

ISIL may well then wipe out the Saudi king and family and Saudi will be in a mess and the rebels will control the Saudi oil.

This is a win win situation for Russia as the price of oil will go up.

I would think that the USA might be considering starting WW3 as this would hide the embarrassment of losing the Middle East situation and would also be a good cover up for the economic crisis / financial turmoil that may well hit the USA economy in the coming months.

Yes, absolutely correct.

What a brilliant post indeed!

But nobody except the USA wants World War III.

What is the solution to this problem?

How to avoid World War III?

How to avoid WWIII? Stop selling weapons to dictators. Stop using your own weapons against other nations. Right???? A dream, I know....

[Soutpeel]

I shall make a few points.

Assad was a democratically elected prime minister of Syria.

I have read at least one person state that the majority of people didn't vote for him and so it was not democratic.

Then you can argue that 80% of the elected prime ministers are not democratically elected. Take the UK with Cameron as prime minister whom's party only got 36% of the vote.

The USA basically only has a choice of two parties (virtually the same) so clearly there is a majority.

I would suggest you ask any Syrian whether they were better off with asad running the country than how it became after the protests.

How the Syrian problem came about

Basically Qatar and Saudi wanted to build an oil/gas pipeline to West Europe through Syria and Turkey.

USA corporations would have got the contract.

Russia would have lost exports of oil and gas to western Europe.

Asad was asked by Saudi, Qatar and US to let them build a pipe line through Syria. Asked by Saudi, then USA government. Asad said NO !

It was decided that Asad had to go as he was not co-operating, much like Egypt, Iraq and Libyan leaders.

So the CIA trained up, armed and gave Saudi cash to some people to act as rebels / protesters against Syria.

They started to protest but unfortunately Asad fought back (probably with Russian help) and they were unable to bring down Asad.

These rebels gave up fighting Asad, but with CIA supplied equipment and Saudi money decided to call themselves ISIL and go and in effect loot Iraq. The result was that they took control of some oil fields and sold the oil and had even more money to continue.

USA had left things continue because it was a satisfactory position for USA

1) Syria was in economic crisis (like they did to Egypt, Iraq and Libya)

2) USA thought the price of oil would go up meaning fracking in the USA would be competitive (break even price for oil production is a barrel of oil being US$75)

3) liked the idea of Syrians fleeing to the EC creating economic and political problems in the EC.

Russian Involvement

Putin has basically, as usual, played a nice strategic game.

Putin wants the price of oil and gas to go up as it is important for the economy of Russia.

Putin has now told the world that he is sorting out ISIL because the USA clearly cannot. The fact is that the USA doesn't want the crisis to end (read reasons given above) and this is clear from:

1) how quickly ISIL are running from Syria within one week of Russia getting involved and yet USA could not get rid of ISIL in more than three years.

2) USA and the west are not helping Russia.

I would think that Putin's plan is to push ISIL into Iraq. Iraq then ask Russia and Iran help them to get rid of ISIL. Russia and Iran will then push ISIL into Saudi Arabia.

ISIL may well then wipe out the Saudi king and family and Saudi will be in a mess and the rebels will control the Saudi oil.

This is a win win situation for Russia as the price of oil will go up.

I would think that the USA might be considering starting WW3 as this would hide the embarrassment of losing the Middle East situation and would also be a good cover up for the economic crisis / financial turmoil that may well hit the USA economy in the coming months.

Yes, absolutely correct.

What a brilliant post indeed!

But nobody except the USA wants World War III.

What is the solution to this problem?

How to avoid World War III?

How to avoid WWIII? Stop selling weapons to dictators. Stop using your own weapons against other nations. Right???? A dream, I know....

Funny how that arguement doesnt fly in the US as regards private fire arm control

[slipperylobster]

The Ruskies launched cruise missiles at Syria

Which with the DoD caused a mild hysteria.

They accuse the US of continuing the tragedy

And the US says they are using bad strategy

As the war news there gets wearier and wearier.

Well, let's get back to the original topic.

Some more details are here:

After watching this .. I must wonder what targets were hit..and how many innocents killed? What makes this any different then bombing Iraq/Afganistan?

Empowing the russkies is not going to make things any prettier.....

Go ahead and root for russia....and god help the nations who play putins card game. This is one evil dude.

How many innocents killed recently by US army's bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan?

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/05/the-radically-changing-story-of-the-u-s-airstrike-on-afghan-hospital-from-mistake-to-justification/

Probably less that the multiple, long range missile strikes that I saw on the video...

so what exactly is your point? That russia kills less people than the USA for better reasons?

Cannot even believe I had to reply to your post.... amazing.

[Barin]

Doesnt care about Humanitarian issues ?...bit rich isnt given, given the US just bombed a hospital into the ground in Afganistan

That hospital bombing was horrible. But to single out one event is perhaps not the best thing to do. The US probably provides more humanitarian support around the world than any other nation. Definitely more than Russia.

USA also bombs more nations and kills more people than any other nation on earth.

Yes, that is correct!

[craigt3365]

USA also bombs more nations and kills more people than any other nation on earth.

Not actually true with regards to the number killed:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

In many cases (notably Stalin's and Mao's cases) one has to decide how to consider the millions who died indirectly because of their political decisions. The Chinese cultural revolution caused the death of 30 million people (according to the current Chinese government), but many died of hunger and ordinary Chinese (who, unlike us, were there) blame Mao's wife rather than Mao himself. Stalin is held responsible for the death of millions by Ukrainians, but "only" half a million people were killed by his order. Khomeini sent children to die in the war against Iraq, but it was a war.

Mao and Stalin seem to stand pretty high with regards to these numbers:

http://memolition.com/2014/03/05/which-dictator-killed-the-most/

[Wombat6]

Of course they do !!

[konying]

This is rather strange, considering Saudi's are on the same side, but picture is becoming more clear by the day.

Saudi clerics call for jihad against Russia in #Syria – to back #ISIS?http://t.co/TQAfJJN9BXpic.twitter.com/nLzrhUlTVl

[zakk9]

USA also bombs more nations and kills more people than any other nation on earth.

Not actually true with regards to the number killed:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

In many cases (notably Stalin's and Mao's cases) one has to decide how to consider the millions who died indirectly because of their political decisions. The Chinese cultural revolution caused the death of 30 million people (according to the current Chinese government), but many died of hunger and ordinary Chinese (who, unlike us, were there) blame Mao's wife rather than Mao himself. Stalin is held responsible for the death of millions by Ukrainians, but "only" half a million people were killed by his order. Khomeini sent children to die in the war against Iraq, but it was a war.

Mao and Stalin seem to stand pretty high with regards to these numbers:

http://memolition.com/2014/03/05/which-dictator-killed-the-most/

I talk about now, not 50 or 100 years ago. Apart from that, more than a million people died from the war in Iraq alone, and people are still dying there. For Vietnam, nobody knows. Remember also, that Pol Pot would never have come to power if USA hadn't bombed parts of Cambodia to pieces. Another thing is that dictators mostly kill their fellow citizens. Americans travel around the world to kill people elsewhere. A hundred thousand here and a hundred thousand there. It soon adds up. If you want to compare American presidents with people like Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, be my guest, but they are not exactly people I would set as a standard for good governance.

[Publicus]

Love Putin or hate him, it is a good strategy to respect your enemy. He has put together a solid game plan that seems very well thought out. His plan with regard to world banking was brilliant at least in theory. A lot of works still needs to be done but no great plan happens overnight. He is now working to isolate Israel and the USA. On the surface, it seems to be working I would hate to be locked into a cage with Israel my only ally. He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Russia...part of the failed soveit union..communist block.

worst idea in history

Russia has been around way before the US even existed, the soviet era was a very small part of its entire history....but of course what you got taught in school was the commie behind every plant pot propaganda version of history your masters where brainwashing you with

Dunno which schools some people may have gone to in the USA but one look across Eurasia to the land of the Rus shows Putin is living the 1000 year legacy of miserable Russian tsarism integrated (mangled) into his pathetic experience as an obscure KGB agent in East Germany, a former possession of the failed Soviet Union, both of which disappeared from among the living nations of the world.

Vladimir is Ivan and Ivan is Vladimir. Peter the Great Vlad is not. Every tsar was anyway a barbarian and a progenitor of Stalin and the rest of 'em right up to Putin in the present. There are no mitigating circumstances, periods of time or events in any of this grim and self-retarding Russian history.

Putin is doing what he was born to do as a Russian which provides nothing to commend him..

[Publicus]

I shall make a few points.

Assad was a democratically elected prime minister of Syria.

I have read at least one person state that the majority of people didn't vote for him and so it was not democratic.

Then you can argue that 80% of the elected prime ministers are not democratically elected. Take the UK with Cameron as prime minister whom's party only got 36% of the vote.

The USA basically only has a choice of two parties (virtually the same) so clearly there is a majority.

I would suggest you ask any Syrian whether they were better off with asad running the country than how it became after the protests.

How the Syrian problem came about

Basically Qatar and Saudi wanted to build an oil/gas pipeline to West Europe through Syria and Turkey.

USA corporations would have got the contract.

Russia would have lost exports of oil and gas to western Europe.

Asad was asked by Saudi, Qatar and US to let them build a pipe line through Syria. Asked by Saudi, then USA government. Asad said NO !

It was decided that Asad had to go as he was not co-operating, much like Egypt, Iraq and Libyan leaders.

So the CIA trained up, armed and gave Saudi cash to some people to act as rebels / protesters against Syria.

They started to protest but unfortunately Asad fought back (probably with Russian help) and they were unable to bring down Asad.

These rebels gave up fighting Asad, but with CIA supplied equipment and Saudi money decided to call themselves ISIL and go and in effect loot Iraq. The result was that they took control of some oil fields and sold the oil and had even more money to continue.

USA had left things continue because it was a satisfactory position for USA

1) Syria was in economic crisis (like they did to Egypt, Iraq and Libya)

2) USA thought the price of oil would go up meaning fracking in the USA would be competitive (break even price for oil production is a barrel of oil being US$75)

3) liked the idea of Syrians fleeing to the EC creating economic and political problems in the EC.

Russian Involvement

Putin has basically, as usual, played a nice strategic game.

Putin wants the price of oil and gas to go up as it is important for the economy of Russia.

Putin has now told the world that he is sorting out ISIL because the USA clearly cannot. The fact is that the USA doesn't want the crisis to end (read reasons given above) and this is clear from:

1) how quickly ISIL are running from Syria within one week of Russia getting involved and yet USA could not get rid of ISIL in more than three years.

2) USA and the west are not helping Russia.

I would think that Putin's plan is to push ISIL into Iraq. Iraq then ask Russia and Iran help them to get rid of ISIL. Russia and Iran will then push ISIL into Saudi Arabia.

ISIL may well then wipe out the Saudi king and family and Saudi will be in a mess and the rebels will control the Saudi oil.

This is a win win situation for Russia as the price of oil will go up.

I would think that the USA might be considering starting WW3 as this would hide the embarrassment of losing the Middle East situation and would also be a good cover up for the economic crisis / financial turmoil that may well hit the USA economy in the coming months.

Basically Qatar and Saudi wanted to build an oil/gas pipeline to West Europe through Syria and Turkey.

When there's a plane crash it's hardly ever one single thing, so it is exceedingly challenging to the rational and balanced mind that one single thing could have precipitated the Syrian civil war. Yes the post says "basically" but that makes it all the more insufficient, lacking, inadequate.

On a plane the fuel line for instance can get overheated but something overheated it. The overheated fuel line caused the fuel pressure line in the port wing to begin to leak. The leak caused gauges in the cockpit to show wrong readings. The pilots did not immediately contact the tower which meant that.....it is a combination of things, not one single "basically" thing, event, place, person.

The basically a pipeline line is entirely superficial and lacking, shallow and glib. The "basically" needs more basics, ancillary factors, consequences, cause-effect relationships, interactions among principals, governments and the like. Basically a pipeline does not cause nations to go to war, which is where we may be headed.

Basically a pipeline is not an assassinated archduke, it is not the Danzig corridor, it is not the Marco Polo Bridge nor is it Pearl Harbor. It is not even the Gulf of Tonkin which was yet another farce but it was at the least a (feigned) military engagement. Not these nor others..

The global conspiracy crowd really has to do better than a single proposed pipeline that was going to be just another pipeline. The EU last year shut down Putin's southern route pipeline through Bulgaria where construction had already begun yet Putin still has not nuked Brussels.

It could sound like the United States would need to move its armed forces into defensive positions at the Canadian border prior declaring its decision on the Keystone pipeline.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Publicus

[slipperylobster]

By the way...

Four of those ruskie missiles landed on Iran (their ally).

of course...no apologies and no report of damages.

Edited October 8, 2015 by slipperylobster

[slipperylobster]

Russia has a huge problem with terrorism. Due to their war with Chechnya and their desire for independence. The rebels there are now associated with ISIL:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/02/islamic-state-of-russia-caucasus-terrorists-pledge-allegiance-to-isis/

Over 2,000 Russians traveled to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS in the past year, mostly from Chechnya. In September, ISIS released a video of a Russian jihadist. He vowed ISIS will liberate Chechnya and the North Caucasus from Russia. The group strongly opposes Russian President Vladimir Putin providing aid to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Scary stuff....

You sound very American.

No surprise.

It's natural for American people from New York to sound very American...

Careful of the "ant-american" trolling here. It is rather obvious.

[sirineou]

Russia was invited by Assad, who may or may not be the legal leader of that country. It's being debated right now, and some really good arguments are being made he is not the legal leader.

This is a lose-lose situation for Russia. I'm afraid Russia may see more terrorist bombings in Moscow. They've already had quite a few, unfortunately.

https://www.rt.com/politics/317181-russia-taking-measures-against-potential/

Russian special services are working tirelessly to prevent potential terrorist attacks by extremists in retaliation to Moscow’s operation in Syria, Dmitry Peskov, presidential press secretary, has said.

who is the legal leader of Syria? what are the criteria used to determine the legality of a regime, and what is the controlling agency that determines the legality of a government.

The criteria is the International Law developed by the United Nations.

The UN might be the controlling agency but it is not the criteria.

Criteria would be the standards of judgement.

Under which standards would the UN determine the Assad regime to be illegitimate and with out the power to take decisions for the Syrian people? and if Assad is not, who is?

I am not aware of any UN resolutions determining the Assad government to be illegitimate, not saying there is not one, I dont know everything,

But with Russia having Veto power, I dont see how such resolution could possible pass. or how Russia would allow such resolution to pass and then accept an invitation from Assad

As far as I know in such resolution Russia would have three choices. Be for, against, or abstain,

Perhaps some one who knows more about these things than me,could expand on this.

[simple1]

I shall make a few points.

Assad was a democratically elected prime minister of Syria.

I have read at least one person state that the majority of people didn't vote for him and so it was not democratic.

Then you can argue that 80% of the elected prime ministers are not democratically elected. Take the UK with Cameron as prime minister whom's party only got 36% of the vote.

The USA basically only has a choice of two parties (virtually the same) so clearly there is a majority.

I would suggest you ask any Syrian whether they were better off with asad running the country than how it became after the protests.

How the Syrian problem came about

Basically Qatar and Saudi wanted to build an oil/gas pipeline to West Europe through Syria and Turkey.

USA corporations would have got the contract.

Russia would have lost exports of oil and gas to western Europe.

Asad was asked by Saudi, Qatar and US to let them build a pipe line through Syria. Asked by Saudi, then USA government. Asad said NO !

It was decided that Asad had to go as he was not co-operating, much like Egypt, Iraq and Libyan leaders.

So the CIA trained up, armed and gave Saudi cash to some people to act as rebels / protesters against Syria.

They started to protest but unfortunately Asad fought back (probably with Russian help) and they were unable to bring down Asad.

These rebels gave up fighting Asad, but with CIA supplied equipment and Saudi money decided to call themselves ISIL and go and in effect loot Iraq. The result was that they took control of some oil fields and sold the oil and had even more money to continue.

USA had left things continue because it was a satisfactory position for USA

1) Syria was in economic crisis (like they did to Egypt, Iraq and Libya)

2) USA thought the price of oil would go up meaning fracking in the USA would be competitive (break even price for oil production is a barrel of oil being US$75)

3) liked the idea of Syrians fleeing to the EC creating economic and political problems in the EC.

Russian Involvement

Putin has basically, as usual, played a nice strategic game.

Putin wants the price of oil and gas to go up as it is important for the economy of Russia.

Putin has now told the world that he is sorting out ISIL because the USA clearly cannot. The fact is that the USA doesn't want the crisis to end (read reasons given above) and this is clear from:

1) how quickly ISIL are running from Syria within one week of Russia getting involved and yet USA could not get rid of ISIL in more than three years.

2) USA and the west are not helping Russia.

I would think that Putin's plan is to push ISIL into Iraq. Iraq then ask Russia and Iran help them to get rid of ISIL. Russia and Iran will then push ISIL into Saudi Arabia.

ISIL may well then wipe out the Saudi king and family and Saudi will be in a mess and the rebels will control the Saudi oil.

This is a win win situation for Russia as the price of oil will go up.

I would think that the USA might be considering starting WW3 as this would hide the embarrassment of losing the Middle East situation and would also be a good cover up for the economic crisis / financial turmoil that may well hit the USA economy in the coming months.

A rewrite of history ignoring the known facts of the minority dictatorship's endemic use of torture and death squads against any opposition leading up to the Arab Spring, together with the dictatorship's violent response to the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 which triggered the Civil War. Elections are rigged.

Edited October 8, 2015 by simple1

[zakk9]

I shall make a few points.

Assad was a democratically elected prime minister of Syria.

I have read at least one person state that the majority of people didn't vote for him and so it was not democratic.

Then you can argue that 80% of the elected prime ministers are not democratically elected. Take the UK with Cameron as prime minister whom's party only got 36% of the vote.

The USA basically only has a choice of two parties (virtually the same) so clearly there is a majority.

I would suggest you ask any Syrian whether they were better off with asad running the country than how it became after the protests.

How the Syrian problem came about

Basically Qatar and Saudi wanted to build an oil/gas pipeline to West Europe through Syria and Turkey.

USA corporations would have got the contract.

Russia would have lost exports of oil and gas to western Europe.

Asad was asked by Saudi, Qatar and US to let them build a pipe line through Syria. Asked by Saudi, then USA government. Asad said NO !

It was decided that Asad had to go as he was not co-operating, much like Egypt, Iraq and Libyan leaders.

So the CIA trained up, armed and gave Saudi cash to some people to act as rebels / protesters against Syria.

They started to protest but unfortunately Asad fought back (probably with Russian help) and they were unable to bring down Asad.

These rebels gave up fighting Asad, but with CIA supplied equipment and Saudi money decided to call themselves ISIL and go and in effect loot Iraq. The result was that they took control of some oil fields and sold the oil and had even more money to continue.

USA had left things continue because it was a satisfactory position for USA

1) Syria was in economic crisis (like they did to Egypt, Iraq and Libya)

2) USA thought the price of oil would go up meaning fracking in the USA would be competitive (break even price for oil production is a barrel of oil being US$75)

3) liked the idea of Syrians fleeing to the EC creating economic and political problems in the EC.

Russian Involvement

Putin has basically, as usual, played a nice strategic game.

Putin wants the price of oil and gas to go up as it is important for the economy of Russia.

Putin has now told the world that he is sorting out ISIL because the USA clearly cannot. The fact is that the USA doesn't want the crisis to end (read reasons given above) and this is clear from:

1) how quickly ISIL are running from Syria within one week of Russia getting involved and yet USA could not get rid of ISIL in more than three years.

2) USA and the west are not helping Russia.

I would think that Putin's plan is to push ISIL into Iraq. Iraq then ask Russia and Iran help them to get rid of ISIL. Russia and Iran will then push ISIL into Saudi Arabia.

ISIL may well then wipe out the Saudi king and family and Saudi will be in a mess and the rebels will control the Saudi oil.

This is a win win situation for Russia as the price of oil will go up.

I would think that the USA might be considering starting WW3 as this would hide the embarrassment of losing the Middle East situation and would also be a good cover up for the economic crisis / financial turmoil that may well hit the USA economy in the coming months.

A rewrite of history ignoring the known facts of the minority dictatorship's endemic use of torture and death squads against any opposition leading up to the Arab Spring, together with the dictatorship's violent response to the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 which triggered the Civil War. Elections are rigged.

The Arab Spring? You mean cutting people's heads off, pushing them out from high buildings and raping women and children?

[spidermike007]

“We believe that Russia has the wrong strategy,” announced Ashton Carter, US Defence Secretary. “They continue to hit targets that are not ISIL. We believe this is a fundamental mistake. Despite what the Russians say, we have not agreed to cooperate with Russia as long as they continue to pursue mistaken strategy.”

And what exactly is the US strategy in Syria? Is there one? Has it had any impact yet?

[JingerBen]

“We believe that Russia has the wrong strategy,” announced Ashton Carter, US Defence Secretary. “They continue to hit targets that are not ISIL. We believe this is a fundamental mistake. Despite what the Russians say, we have not agreed to cooperate with Russia as long as they continue to pursue mistaken strategy.”

And what exactly is the US strategy in Syria? Is there one? Has it had any impact yet?

US strategy in the Middle East as a whole has led to unintended consequences that are disastrous.

The influx of migrants into Europe is just the latest in a long series of failures.

[soalbundy]

I shall make a few points.

Assad was a democratically elected prime minister of Syria.

I have read at least one person state that the majority of people didn't vote for him and so it was not democratic.

Then you can argue that 80% of the elected prime ministers are not democratically elected. Take the UK with Cameron as prime minister whom's party only got 36% of the vote.

The USA basically only has a choice of two parties (virtually the same) so clearly there is a majority.

I would suggest you ask any Syrian whether they were better off with asad running the country than how it became after the protests.

How the Syrian problem came about

Basically Qatar and Saudi wanted to build an oil/gas pipeline to West Europe through Syria and Turkey.

USA corporations would have got the contract.

Russia would have lost exports of oil and gas to western Europe.

Asad was asked by Saudi, Qatar and US to let them build a pipe line through Syria. Asked by Saudi, then USA government. Asad said NO !

It was decided that Asad had to go as he was not co-operating, much like Egypt, Iraq and Libyan leaders.

So the CIA trained up, armed and gave Saudi cash to some people to act as rebels / protesters against Syria.

They started to protest but unfortunately Asad fought back (probably with Russian help) and they were unable to bring down Asad.

These rebels gave up fighting Asad, but with CIA supplied equipment and Saudi money decided to call themselves ISIL and go and in effect loot Iraq. The result was that they took control of some oil fields and sold the oil and had even more money to continue.

USA had left things continue because it was a satisfactory position for USA

1) Syria was in economic crisis (like they did to Egypt, Iraq and Libya)

2) USA thought the price of oil would go up meaning fracking in the USA would be competitive (break even price for oil production is a barrel of oil being US$75)

3) liked the idea of Syrians fleeing to the EC creating economic and political problems in the EC.

Russian Involvement

Putin has basically, as usual, played a nice strategic game.

Putin wants the price of oil and gas to go up as it is important for the economy of Russia.

Putin has now told the world that he is sorting out ISIL because the USA clearly cannot. The fact is that the USA doesn't want the crisis to end (read reasons given above) and this is clear from:

1) how quickly ISIL are running from Syria within one week of Russia getting involved and yet USA could not get rid of ISIL in more than three years.

2) USA and the west are not helping Russia.

I would think that Putin's plan is to push ISIL into Iraq. Iraq then ask Russia and Iran help them to get rid of ISIL. Russia and Iran will then push ISIL into Saudi Arabia.

ISIL may well then wipe out the Saudi king and family and Saudi will be in a mess and the rebels will control the Saudi oil.

This is a win win situation for Russia as the price of oil will go up.

I would think that the USA might be considering starting WW3 as this would hide the embarrassment of losing the Middle East situation and would also be a good cover up for the economic crisis / financial turmoil that may well hit the USA economy in the coming months.

Good analysis, interesting strategy.

yes it really does sound like typical American foreign policy, have a hissy fit, cause disruption and war, blame someone else and try to sort things out half heartedly and lose of course

[Pakboong]

comments were full where I wanted to post this but, it is addressing the anti-American trolling comment

A funny comment. I am American, retired Army and 10 additional years of government service. My Dad served 35 years and my only brother-in-law is retired Army. All of us are patriotic Americans who want what is best for America but, we are all very much anti-stupid, 5 combat campaigns among the 3 of us; we will win some and lose some regardless, The toughest nuts to crack is those who in the loyalty oath are called "domestic enemies". Any idiot can see the foreign enemy, he is wearing a different uniform.

I think it was Voltaire that said that dissent is the purest form of patriotism. Please do not confuse dissent with "anti-American" trolling. If you don't know the oath : we swear to protect the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[craigt3365]

comments were full where I wanted to post this but, it is addressing the anti-American trolling comment

A funny comment. I am American, retired Army and 10 additional years of government service. My Dad served 35 years and my only brother-in-law is retired Army. All of us are patriotic Americans who want what is best for America but, we are all very much anti-stupid, 5 combat campaigns among the 3 of us; we will win some and lose some regardless, The toughest nuts to crack is those who in the loyalty oath are called "domestic enemies". Any idiot can see the foreign enemy, he is wearing a different uniform.

I think it was Voltaire that said that dissent is the purest form of patriotism. Please do not confuse dissent with "anti-American" trolling. If you don't know the oath : we swear to protect the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Don't mean to offend, so please take this appropriately, but some of the worst anti-Americans are actually Americans! I've got a few German friends who hate their government almost as much as America! Even to the point of renouncing their citizenship! Crazy....

Forum rules don't permit the bashing of nationalities. And for good reason.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.

[micmichd]

Please don't confuse American people with the US government. For me, US was on a democratic peak when they got rid of the Nixon administration, that's what I admire USA for.

Administration bashing is not nation bashing.

[simple1]

I shall make a few points.

Assad was a democratically elected prime minister of Syria.

I have read at least one person state that the majority of people didn't vote for him and so it was not democratic.

Then you can argue that 80% of the elected prime ministers are not democratically elected. Take the UK with Cameron as prime minister whom's party only got 36% of the vote.

The USA basically only has a choice of two parties (virtually the same) so clearly there is a majority.

I would suggest you ask any Syrian whether they were better off with asad running the country than how it became after the protests.

How the Syrian problem came about

Basically Qatar and Saudi wanted to build an oil/gas pipeline to West Europe through Syria and Turkey.

USA corporations would have got the contract.

Russia would have lost exports of oil and gas to western Europe.

Asad was asked by Saudi, Qatar and US to let them build a pipe line through Syria. Asked by Saudi, then USA government. Asad said NO !

It was decided that Asad had to go as he was not co-operating, much like Egypt, Iraq and Libyan leaders.

So the CIA trained up, armed and gave Saudi cash to some people to act as rebels / protesters against Syria.

They started to protest but unfortunately Asad fought back (probably with Russian help) and they were unable to bring down Asad.

These rebels gave up fighting Asad, but with CIA supplied equipment and Saudi money decided to call themselves ISIL and go and in effect loot Iraq. The result was that they took control of some oil fields and sold the oil and had even more money to continue.

USA had left things continue because it was a satisfactory position for USA

1) Syria was in economic crisis (like they did to Egypt, Iraq and Libya)

2) USA thought the price of oil would go up meaning fracking in the USA would be competitive (break even price for oil production is a barrel of oil being US$75)

3) liked the idea of Syrians fleeing to the EC creating economic and political problems in the EC.

Russian Involvement

Putin has basically, as usual, played a nice strategic game.

Putin wants the price of oil and gas to go up as it is important for the economy of Russia.

Putin has now told the world that he is sorting out ISIL because the USA clearly cannot. The fact is that the USA doesn't want the crisis to end (read reasons given above) and this is clear from:

1) how quickly ISIL are running from Syria within one week of Russia getting involved and yet USA could not get rid of ISIL in more than three years.

2) USA and the west are not helping Russia.

I would think that Putin's plan is to push ISIL into Iraq. Iraq then ask Russia and Iran help them to get rid of ISIL. Russia and Iran will then push ISIL into Saudi Arabia.

ISIL may well then wipe out the Saudi king and family and Saudi will be in a mess and the rebels will control the Saudi oil.

This is a win win situation for Russia as the price of oil will go up.

I would think that the USA might be considering starting WW3 as this would hide the embarrassment of losing the Middle East situation and would also be a good cover up for the economic crisis / financial turmoil that may well hit the USA economy in the coming months.

A rewrite of history ignoring the known facts of the minority dictatorship's endemic use of torture and death squads against any opposition leading up to the Arab Spring, together with the dictatorship's violent response to the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 which triggered the Civil War. Elections are rigged.

The Arab Spring? You mean cutting people's heads off, pushing them out from high buildings and raping women and children?

Perhaps you should do some history revision. The civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War (AKA Syrian Arab Spring).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

[zakk9]

I shall make a few points.

Assad was a democratically elected prime minister of Syria.

I have read at least one person state that the majority of people didn't vote for him and so it was not democratic.

Then you can argue that 80% of the elected prime ministers are not democratically elected. Take the UK with Cameron as prime minister whom's party only got 36% of the vote.

The USA basically only has a choice of two parties (virtually the same) so clearly there is a majority.

I would suggest you ask any Syrian whether they were better off with asad running the country than how it became after the protests.

How the Syrian problem came about

Basically Qatar and Saudi wanted to build an oil/gas pipeline to West Europe through Syria and Turkey.

USA corporations would have got the contract.

Russia would have lost exports of oil and gas to western Europe.

Asad was asked by Saudi, Qatar and US to let them build a pipe line through Syria. Asked by Saudi, then USA government. Asad said NO !

It was decided that Asad had to go as he was not co-operating, much like Egypt, Iraq and Libyan leaders.

So the CIA trained up, armed and gave Saudi cash to some people to act as rebels / protesters against Syria.

They started to protest but unfortunately Asad fought back (probably with Russian help) and they were unable to bring down Asad.

These rebels gave up fighting Asad, but with CIA supplied equipment and Saudi money decided to call themselves ISIL and go and in effect loot Iraq. The result was that they took control of some oil fields and sold the oil and had even more money to continue.

USA had left things continue because it was a satisfactory position for USA

1) Syria was in economic crisis (like they did to Egypt, Iraq and Libya)

2) USA thought the price of oil would go up meaning fracking in the USA would be competitive (break even price for oil production is a barrel of oil being US$75)

3) liked the idea of Syrians fleeing to the EC creating economic and political problems in the EC.

Russian Involvement

Putin has basically, as usual, played a nice strategic game.

Putin wants the price of oil and gas to go up as it is important for the economy of Russia.

Putin has now told the world that he is sorting out ISIL because the USA clearly cannot. The fact is that the USA doesn't want the crisis to end (read reasons given above) and this is clear from:

1) how quickly ISIL are running from Syria within one week of Russia getting involved and yet USA could not get rid of ISIL in more than three years.

2) USA and the west are not helping Russia.

I would think that Putin's plan is to push ISIL into Iraq. Iraq then ask Russia and Iran help them to get rid of ISIL. Russia and Iran will then push ISIL into Saudi Arabia.

ISIL may well then wipe out the Saudi king and family and Saudi will be in a mess and the rebels will control the Saudi oil.

This is a win win situation for Russia as the price of oil will go up.

I would think that the USA might be considering starting WW3 as this would hide the embarrassment of losing the Middle East situation and would also be a good cover up for the economic crisis / financial turmoil that may well hit the USA economy in the coming months.

A rewrite of history ignoring the known facts of the minority dictatorship's endemic use of torture and death squads against any opposition leading up to the Arab Spring, together with the dictatorship's violent response to the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 which triggered the Civil War. Elections are rigged.

The Arab Spring? You mean cutting people's heads off, pushing them out from high buildings and raping women and children?

Perhaps you should do some history revision. The civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War (AKA Syrian Arab Spring).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

The Arab Spring was great until western nations started supporting the terrorists who are now running the show.

[craigt3365]

The Arab Spring was great until western nations started supporting the terrorists who are now running the show.

You've obviously done zero research on the Arab Spring uprisings and the brutal oppression against the protesters by the various dictators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

The Syrian Civil War (Arabic: الحرب الأهلية السورية‎) is an ongoing international[74] armed conflict taking place in Syria. The unrest began in the early spring of 2011 within the context of Arab Spring protests, with nationwide protests against President Bashar al-Assad's government, whose forces responded with violent crackdowns. The conflict gradually morphed from prominent protests to an armed rebellion after months of military sieges.[75] The armed opposition consists of various groups that were formed during the course of the conflict, primarily the Free Syrian Army, which was the first to take up arms in 2011, and the Islamic Front, formed in 2013.

Seems these brutal dictators were the ones responsible for creation of a bunch of terrorist organizations....

[craigt3365]

Interesting comments from BBC, saying the bombing of opposition groups as opposed to ISIS targets is helping ISIS into new territory. Congrats Russia!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34488087

Islamic State has seized control of several villages north of Aleppo, Syria, despite Russian and US air strikes said to be targeting the group.

Moscow says its air force has killed 300 militants over the past 24 hours.

But a BBC correspondent in the area says the strikes seem to be mostly hitting rival rebel groups, allowing Islamic State (IS) to push forward.

[Tchooptip]

We believe that Russia has the wrong strategy, says US

Because US has a best one, at least in Middle East for a decade or so

[Scott]

A post linking to a profile page has been removed.

[zakk9]

The Arab Spring was great until western nations started supporting the terrorists who are now running the show.

You've obviously done zero research on the Arab Spring uprisings and the brutal oppression against the protesters by the various dictators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

The Syrian Civil War (Arabic: الحرب الأهلية السورية‎) is an ongoing international[74] armed conflict taking place in Syria. The unrest began in the early spring of 2011 within the context of Arab Spring protests, with nationwide protests against President Bashar al-Assad's government, whose forces responded with violent crackdowns. The conflict gradually morphed from prominent protests to an armed rebellion after months of military sieges.[75] The armed opposition consists of various groups that were formed during the course of the conflict, primarily the Free Syrian Army, which was the first to take up arms in 2011, and the Islamic Front, formed in 2013.

Seems these brutal dictators were the ones responsible for creation of a bunch of terrorist organizations....

http://nsnbc.me/2015/10/01/us-complains-as-russia-bombs-its-terrorists/