Russian FM: US spares al-Qaida's branch to topple Assad

[LawrenceChee]

You obviously didn't spend much time in Iraq. You might want to read about the Anfal campaign and the situation with the Shiites in the South. He also took Kuwait.

The region was hugely unstable and Iran and Iraq were (and may still be) on a collision course. The difference is that little that went on inside the country was information that was available to the outside world. Whether there would be terrorist groups and how they would be handled is largely unknown and simply speculation. Oil is an operative factor and keeping the supply lines open is important. Syria is not that big of a producer of oil.

There was no plan for Syria by the US because the US has no interests in it. If Russia wants to step on the terrorist groups, the US will gladly step out of the situation with Syria. It is Russia who wants Assad, and it is much of the rest of Syria that does not.

By the way, I've lived there and worked there. Have you spent much time in the country or are you just being an armchair quarterback?

Good you lived there ....doesn't make you an expert or take an expert to see the meddling helps with nothing ..

I'm not on most armchairs much since I travel 70% of the year and so far this year on flights no 72 and globally covered enough countries and cities to understand perspectives and not just typing for fun.

[Credo]

Well, actually, I am a bit of an expert on the area. At least that was what the European Union and the UN considered me to be some years back and I did consultation with them that concerned Syria. But that was a few years back when the country was firmly under the grip of Assad Sr. I was also there after Bashir took over.

It was a tightly controlled country, and the secret service was modeled after the East German Secret Police, the Stasi.

Syria was a bitter rival of Saddam Hussein, although both laid claim to the Ba'athist party. Syria allowed numerous questionable groups use Syrian soil to foment problems with the neighboring countries. That is in part why they have little support in the area. They have not been a good neighbor and they have been extremely repressive to a lot of groups, including the Kurds, although they gave sanctuary to the Kurds fighting both Turkey and Iraq at the time.

Their anti-American activities were generally (but not always) low key and included such activities as counterfeiting US $100 bills in an attempt to undermine the US economy. It cost them a lot of money to make quality $100 bills. I don't recall, but I believe it was the Israeli's who took out their counterfeiting operation.

So no, Assad would never win the approval of the US and he was and is a person who is largely not trusted by his own people or his neighbors. He is the epitome of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. He has screwed with too many people to ever have much support from anywhere except maybe Russia and Iran and their motives are a bit suspect as well.

Now, please let us hear about your qualifications on Syria.

[LawrenceChee]

My qualification is not like yours as they have never invited me to consult on Syria seeing that my experience and expertise is pan Asian

My experience with the Chinese government there gives me insights that the Middle East is not an area to meddle with unless you have the guts and the tenacity to be brutal

You can see the Chinese can deal with the African nations and skip the Middle East as the initial discussion there reveal intense western interference which makes the area a business risk and not easy for one to do any trade with

The Chinese , Russians and middle eastern tribe leaders know that brutality rules these area and since it's not a popularity contest , there is no need to be likeable .

Unfortunately western experts like is fixated on the issues of being accepted or winning approval which most governments in the middle east cannot care less for and hence there from a starting point always lead to a point where there is no Long term solution

For areas like this , what is needed are leaders whose methods are not accepted in the west but works for them culturally

I won't ever believe one can understand the middle eastern minds unless you have a real stake there for the country and at this time westerners don't qualify for that no matter what kind of expert one might be and the Chinese have no interest in that area as well

Edited June 20, 2016 by LawrenceChee

[Credo]

And that is the reason that the current administration has treaded much more lightly in the area. The historical importance of the ME was oil and seeing that there was an uninterrupted supply. That still holds and if you want to see the world economy come grinding to a sputtering halt, then just watch what happens if those supplies get interrupted or prices start skyrocketing suddenly. That will negatively affect China as well. Oil is sold on the open market, so if it goes up in price it goes up everywhere. That includes the US as well, so no one is exempt.

So Bush Sr, extricated Kuwait, as the situation had all the hallmarks to make the ME very, very unstable, as well as interrupting those vital supplies. God only knows what Bush Jr was doing, but it made no sense then and there has been nothing to vindicate that silly misadventure. Terrorist organizations have been a hallmark of the region and they have been there for a long time, with or without anyone's help. Certainly exacerbated by political maneuverings by outside countries.

If you recall, Obama 'drew a line' on Assad and then promptly backed off. It was a calculated call and Assad took him up on it. It was worth a try, but the US didn't have any plans to get involved in Syria to any significant degree. Wars and conflicts in that region do not limit themselves to single countries. They tend to spread and cross borders. The Turks bomb Kurds in Iraq, they protected the Turkomen communities in Syria. Turkey as well as Jordan are home to very large refugee populations from Syria. Keep in mind that connection between the Uighurs and the Turks. It is ethnic and it is religious.

There really isn't any viable option to Assad, at least not one that would be suitable to the US, so what has been said is rhetoric. Russia wants Assad and the US wants to get ISIS and other terrorist organizations under control. If Assad goes with them, then so be it; if he stays then so be it. The ones that have a lot to lose are the Russians and that is why they are crying foul.

The idea that China somehow skipped over the ME is misleading. There is nothing there. There is no significant business to engage in. There is oil and instability. They have the expertise, mostly imported, to get the oil out, but they don't even have good refining capacity and they have done very little to develop any other resources except pumping oil.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Credo

[LawrenceChee]

The Chinese skipped over the ME because to get that oil over that risk is not worth it

It's not for the lack of ability to manage hardship or whatever , the Chinese tenacity in Africa and building railways in Tibet's plateau was harder

It's just that at the end of the day it's not worth that amount to get oil when there is such a huge oversupply now and it's cheap to import

At the end of the day by your own examples of what your presidents do show the USA got into this situation because they never know what to do next in that region and rightly should never have got involved

From arming Saddam first , and then saying he is dangerous and removed him with no real agenda and lied to the global community

Then after the war, the Kurds were armed to the teeth by the USA and threw another imbalance to the region and then now wants to be friends with Iran again and of course in between that, they encouraged the Arab nations to throw up a revolution with no thought on how to engage the youths and the problems of those governments

There are more examples but shows the region needs one thing - sort it out themselves

[Publicus]

Beijing has more than 10,000 Chinese dominating the oil fields of southern Iraq, from Baghdad to Basra.

Chinese oil companies and the Chinese government share a concern regarding the outcome of the conflict between ISIS and Iraqi security forces due to Beijing’s considerable oil resources and infrastructure investment. Last year, China was the largest importer of produced Iraqi crude oil at 22%, followed by India at 19%, according to a Jan. 30, 2015, report on Iraq by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Baghdad, in particular, holds key energy significance for Beijing, as it was China’s fifth largest oil source in 2014.[1]

http://atimes.com/2015/09/why-china-will-intervene-in-iraq/

CCP have publicly stated their support of US bombing of ISIS in Iraq but support bombing in Syria only with UN concurrence. CCP reckons upwards of 300 Chinese are in ISIS.

CCP supports Baghdad with military intelligence, equipment, training of special operations forces -- same as the USA does. CCP try to be friendly toward the Kurds in case of an independent state and all the oil in Kurd areas. Good too if there's no separate state although Beijing stays out of the north of Iraq due to the fighting there.

CCP was supposed join Russia to provide Assad with air support but ended up sending its one aircraft carrier group to Iraq without any jet fighters cause PLA Navy turned out to be wholly unprepared for any such thing. Propping up Assad militarily has been entirely Putin's show and the curtain is mostly down on it by now.

[tonbridgebrit]

Washington, can you please get real as to what is actually happening.

The rebels started their rebeliion in Syria, against Assad, and a load of outsiders turned up to back the rebeliion AGAINST Assad. Had those outsiders NOT backed the rebellion, well, the rebellion would have failed. And Syria today, would still be a nation, same as before.

Who were the outsiders who backed the rebellion ? Certainly not Russia, and not China either.


So, the rebels do their rebellion, next thing we know, the rebels themselves are divided. Some of the rebels are ISIS, some are not. So, Washington backs the rebels who are not ISIS, and who are not Al-Qaeda.


Looking back, it would have been far better if all the outsiders just simply left Syria alone at the start. But no, Washington had to get involved, Washington had to back the rebels against Assad. That's what caused the Russians to back Assad.

[Hammock]

Today Russians said that their General staff is loosing patience with the US which is still determining who is moderate opposition and who is hardcore. Russians are constantly asking Allies for coordinates where to bomb without success. By the way, another, the eleventh Russian marine was killed trying to stop a suicider in a car

[tonbridgebrit]

Beijing has more than 10,000 Chinese dominating the oil fields of southern Iraq, from Baghdad to Basra.

Chinese oil companies and the Chinese government share a concern regarding the outcome of the conflict between ISIS and Iraqi security forces due to Beijing’s considerable oil resources and infrastructure investment. Last year, China was the largest importer of produced Iraqi crude oil at 22%, followed by India at 19%, according to a Jan. 30, 2015, report on Iraq by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Baghdad, in particular, holds key energy significance for Beijing, as it was China’s fifth largest oil source in 2014.[1]

http://atimes.com/2015/09/why-china-will-intervene-in-iraq/

CCP have publicly stated their support of US bombing of ISIS in Iraq but support bombing in Syria only with UN concurrence. CCP reckons upwards of 300 Chinese are in ISIS.

CCP supports Baghdad with military intelligence, equipment, training of special operations forces -- same as the USA does. CCP try to be friendly toward the Kurds in case of an independent state and all the oil in Kurd areas. Good too if there's no separate state although Beijing stays out of the north of Iraq due to the fighting there.

CCP was supposed join Russia to provide Assad with air support but ended up sending its one aircraft carrier group to Iraq without any jet fighters cause PLA Navy turned out to be wholly unprepared for any such thing. Propping up Assad militarily has been entirely Putin's show and the curtain is mostly down on it by now.

Who does Washington reckon is the most dangerous ?

Islamic fundamentalists who are against America ? Please note that not all Islamic fundamentalists are against America. Or is Russia more of a threat ? Or is it China who is a greater threat ?

What is the problem with Assad being in control of Syria ? How is that a problem for Washington ? Why continue to back the rebellion against Assad ? Oh, so Washington wants to back the rebellion against Assad, but at the same time, Washington is scared about who is going to be taking over Syria if Assad goes away ?

Assad is NOT an Islamic fundamentalist, surely, Washington feels better about Assad being in control, rather than risk having some Islamic fundamentalists who are against America ?

[Hammock]

Beijing has more than 10,000 Chinese dominating the oil fields of southern Iraq, from Baghdad to Basra.

Chinese oil companies and the Chinese government share a concern regarding the outcome of the conflict between ISIS and Iraqi security forces due to Beijings considerable oil resources and infrastructure investment. Last year, China was the largest importer of produced Iraqi crude oil at 22%, followed by India at 19%, according to a Jan. 30, 2015, report on Iraq by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Baghdad, in particular, holds key energy significance for Beijing, as it was Chinas fifth largest oil source in 2014.[1]

http://atimes.com/2015/09/why-china-will-intervene-in-iraq/

CCP have publicly stated their support of US bombing of ISIS in Iraq but support bombing in Syria only with UN concurrence. CCP reckons upwards of 300 Chinese are in ISIS.

CCP supports Baghdad with military intelligence, equipment, training of special operations forces -- same as the USA does. CCP try to be friendly toward the Kurds in case of an independent state and all the oil in Kurd areas. Good too if there's no separate state although Beijing stays out of the north of Iraq due to the fighting there.

CCP was supposed join Russia to provide Assad with air support but ended up sending its one aircraft carrier group to Iraq without any jet fighters cause PLA Navy turned out to be wholly unprepared for any such thing. Propping up Assad militarily has been entirely Putin's show and the curtain is mostly down on it by now.

Who does Washington reckon is the most dangerous ?

Islamic fundamentalists who are against America ? Please note that not all Islamic fundamentalists are against America. Or is Russia more of a threat ? Or is it China who is a greater threat ?

What is the problem with Assad being in control of Syria ? How is that a problem for Washington ? Why continue to back the rebellion against Assad ? Oh, so Washington wants to back the rebellion against Assad, but at the same time, Washington is scared about who is going to be taking over Syria if Assad goes away ?

Assad is NOT an Islamic fundamentalist, surely, Washington feels better about Assad being in control, rather than risk having some Islamic fundamentalists who are against America ?

Presume guys from the State Dept need to do some work to get salaries???

[tonbridgebrit]

Today Russians said that their General staff is loosing patience with the US which is still determining who is moderate opposition and who is hardcore. Russians are constantly asking Allies for coordinates where to bomb without success. By the way, another, the eleventh Russian marine was killed trying to stop a suicider in a car

The US is still trying to determine who is moderate, and who is hardcore ?

How about this. Washington does not really care about Islamic fundamentalists taking over Syria. The important thing is this, the Islamic fundamentalists are NOT going to be against America.

You notice how that Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, and does not have lots of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Saudi Arabia's Islam is actually more strict than most other Muslim countries' Islam. But Washington still backs Saudi Arabia. Washington still sells a huge amount of military hardware to Saudi Arabia. Billions of dollars of profit.

[Publicus]

Today Russians said that their General staff is loosing patience with the US which is still determining who is moderate opposition and who is hardcore. Russians are constantly asking Allies for coordinates where to bomb without success. By the way, another, the eleventh Russian marine was killed trying to stop a suicider in a car

The post says Russians are constantly asking "Allies" for coordinates of where to bomb without success. Russia however has no allies in Syria (or much of anywhere else). Not Turkey...not Israel...not Egypt...not the USA.......If Russia can't do its own targeting of those it IDs as the "enemy" then they'd be in a sad state of military affairs. US deals de facto with Russia in Syria, not as an ally or a partner and it's the same for the other governments of the region, save Iran.

Last year SecDef Ashton Carter ended 15 years of US strategic ambiguity by putting Russia behind Door Number One, CCP Beijing behind Door Number Two, and Iran behind Door Number Three. In terms of intelligence and homeland security, terrorism is number one across national borders, i.e., globally but in the ME especially.

Nor does Putin care how many Marines Russia loses as long as no one at home finds out about it. Best thing Putin could do is to listen to the CCP Dictators in Beijing who want Russia's cooperation with the West in the ME rather than antagonism and hostility toward it. The conflict stuff is bad for business, the oil flow especially, to include CCP and Iran.

[Hammock]

Today Russians said that their General staff is loosing patience with the US which is still determining who is moderate opposition and who is hardcore. Russians are constantly asking Allies for coordinates where to bomb without success. By the way, another, the eleventh Russian marine was killed trying to stop a suicider in a car

The post says Russians are constantly asking "Allies" for coordinates of where to bomb without success. Russia however has no allies in Syria (or much of anywhere else). Not Turkey...not Israel...not Egypt...not the USA.......If Russia can't do its own targeting of those it IDs as the "enemy" then they'd be in a sad state of military affairs. US deals de facto with Russia in Syria, not as an ally or a partner and it's the same for the other governments of the region, save Iran.

Last year SecDef Ashton Carter ended 15 years of US strategic ambiguity by putting Russia behind Door Number One, CCP Beijing behind Door Number Two, and Iran behind Door Number Three. In terms of intelligence and homeland security, terrorism is number one across national borders, i.e., globally but in the ME especially.

Nor does Putin care how many Marines Russia loses as long as no one at home finds out about it. Best thing Putin could do is to listen to the CCP Dictators in Beijing who want Russia's cooperation with the West in the ME rather than antagonism and hostility toward it. The conflict stuff is bad for business, the oil flow especially, to include CCP and Iran.

No comment

[tonbridgebrit]

Putin never learns.

CCP Dictators in Beijing have benefited enormously by heavily engaging their economic development with the USA, in financing especially. India has gained much the past twenty years by an increasingly active political alignment with the USA to include strategically in the SCS, South Central Asia, and concerning Iran and the Gulf.

Putin on the other hand has encouraged Russian jihadists in the North Caucuses to fight in Syria figuring USA would help kill 'em off for him. Daesh is more the enemy of Russia than it is the USA which is why Putin focused on bombing hell out of 'em. Al Nusra keeps putting it to Putin to the point he's got FM Lavrov squawking to SecState John Kerry who continues to play the role of Obama's butler innocently spilling hot tea on Putin.

Putin chooses to instead wage hybrid wars against Georgia, Ukraine and now USA in Syria while Europe begins again to feel menaced by Putin as a 21st century territorial aggressor in EurAsia. So Putin's had the squeeze put on him in oil prices, the ruble, trade and technology, diplomacy, the collapse of his precious Brics countries; he's struggling (against Canada-USA mainly) to access resources in the Arctic and so much more that's whacked his government budget off by 50% and chopped 5% off GDP.

If Putin could cooperate on some one important thing such as do CCP and India respectively, Russia and Putin along with everyone else would be a lot better off. Instead Putin pursues his constant and unrelenting, eccentric and idiosyncratic irredentism and revanchism. Putin is a compulsive and nothing more than obsessive.

Russian elites have begun to recognise Putin suffers from a brain disease, i.e., ideology -- he is a Tsarist-Chekist who will never change. Which means a further development of Russia can become possible only if and when Putin is sent off to retirement on some tropical island. Or terminated in one way or the other by his own elites who can offer the population a way to restore progress based in stability and global respect.

Wow, there really are many people that swallow the corporate media version of reality hook, line and sinker.

Look loving your country but disliking its government policies isn't being a traitor, it's being a true patriot. Engage in some wider reading (and not just RT which also has an agenda), the world really isn't the way FOX News presents it.

When the penny finally drops most get pretty angry about the lies we've been told most of our lives. It really is a blue pill/red pill moment. Some conspiracies are real, others are nonsense, no black and white out there, just numerous shades of grey, but making some sense of it all starts with objectivity.

This is not a post from somebody who has swallowed the corporate media version of reality hook, line and sinker.

This is a post from somebody, who I reckon, knows what the real deal is. This is a Washington cheerleader, who is doing his bit to spread the false picture that Washington wants people to see and believe.

A war-monger. Most war-mongers support the Republicans. But this is a war-monger that hates the Republcans, and loves Hilary Clinton.

[LawrenceChee]

Ill stick to my posts and position

The Middle East is a complex region and needs strong leaders at helm to keep them sane and secured

Most will look at from the outside and say they have no human rights etc and no freedom of speech but closer to home this is true too in many parts of ASEAN and not much have been said as currently USA needs ASEAN to unite against China in SCS

One of the poster is correct is saying that Saudi remains USA closest ally in ME and yet in Saudi there are strict Muslim laws that steps on every tenant of human rights activists

USA choose to stay quiet as that is the last remaining ally in the area who will allow USA to fly at will etc to launch missions

The USA has also stepped in and now want to be friends with Iran when a couple of years ago it was sworn enemies of the state

Of course the beaten cat story was how Saddam turned from a strategic USA ally to a man with loads of crazy weapons and was removed too from Iraq

This constant back flipping of the USA is the very reason why they should not get involved. This is seen as weakness in the Middle East and unfortunately whether we like it or not it seem that region is best governed and left alone to its own tinkling and methods

They seem to understand one thing only ...strong leaders not ...political carrot nutheads or raving woman at the stands

Either incoming POTUS is bad news for this region as once again the meddling doesn't help and just increase civilian difficulty in living a normal life

Some can laugh but under Saddam Iraq was powerful and stable and the life was good really good then

[tonbridgebrit]

Ill stick to my posts and position

The Middle East is a complex region and needs strong leaders at helm to keep them sane and secured

Washington's policy in the Middle East has always been to exploit and dominate the Middle East countries, divide and control them, it's not actually about going all out to encourage freedom and democracy.

Let's look at Iran. Back in 1953, Washington carried out a coup in Iran. This coup removed a democratically elected Iranian government, and put in place the puppet Shah. It was all done to control Iran's oil. Here's the link from wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

The puppet Shah was removed by a massively popular uprising by the Iranians in 1979, and the Ayatollah took over. Saddam Hussein's Iraq then declared war on Iran, Saddam was hoping for a quick victory. So, Washington backed Iraq, why fight Iran directly if you can support whatever dictator who is fighting Iran.

What about Egypt ? Yes, Egypt had that Arab Spring thing, they removed Hosni Mubarak in a massively popular uprising. Mubarak was in charge for about three decades. People tend to forget that Washington backed and supported Mubarak during those three decades.

And now, Syria. Washington hates Assad. Washington backs the rebels against the Syrian government, it's just that Washington is worried that the rebels who take over Syria might give America a bigger problem than Assad. Hence, Washington has to make sure that it is supporting the 'correct' rebels.

[tonbridgebrit]

Putin never learns.

If Putin could cooperate on some one important thing such as do CCP and India respectively, Russia and Putin along with everyone else would be a lot better off. Instead Putin pursues his constant and unrelenting, eccentric and idiosyncratic irredentism and revanchism. Putin is a compulsive and nothing more than obsessive.

Russian elites have begun to recognise Putin suffers from a brain disease, i.e., ideology -- he is a Tsarist-Chekist who will never change. Which means a further development of Russia can become possible only if and when Putin is sent off to retirement on some tropical island. Or terminated in one way or the other by his own elites who can offer the population a way to restore progress based in stability and global respect.

"Putin never learns" ??

What ?? What a silly thing to say. Okay, I don't want to say the following, but it would be easier to say the following rather than "Putin never learns".

"Washington never learns. Back in the 1980s, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. The mujhahideen rebels who fought against the Russians were backed and supported by Washington. That Afghan war ended in the late 1980s, and basically, most people reckon that some of them rebels became the Islamic fundamentalists who took over Afghanistan in the mid and late 1990s. So, the 9/11 bombings were done by people who, well, maybe those people were connected to the rebels that America supported a decade earlier ? And in Syria today, what are we seeing ? It might be the best option to simply stop backing whatever rebels in Syria, and let Assad be in charge again. Assad, after all, is surely not a threat to America or Europe.

Is Washington never going to learn that backing whatever rebels is a dangerous thing to do. Those rebels might come back to cause a bigger problem. "

[LawrenceChee]

Putin never learns.

If Putin could cooperate on some one important thing such as do CCP and India respectively, Russia and Putin along with everyone else would be a lot better off. Instead Putin pursues his constant and unrelenting, eccentric and idiosyncratic irredentism and revanchism. Putin is a compulsive and nothing more than obsessive.

Russian elites have begun to recognise Putin suffers from a brain disease, i.e., ideology -- he is a Tsarist-Chekist who will never change. Which means a further development of Russia can become possible only if and when Putin is sent off to retirement on some tropical island. Or terminated in one way or the other by his own elites who can offer the population a way to restore progress based in stability and global respect.

"Putin never learns" ??

What ?? What a silly thing to say. Okay, I don't want to say the following, but it would be easier to say the following rather than "Putin never learns".

"Washington never learns. Back in the 1980s, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. The mujhahideen rebels who fought against the Russians were backed and supported by Washington. That Afghan war ended in the late 1980s, and basically, most people reckon that some of them rebels became the Islamic fundamentalists who took over Afghanistan in the mid and late 1990s. So, the 9/11 bombings were done by people who, well, maybe those people were connected to the rebels that America supported a decade earlier ? And in Syria today, what are we seeing ? It might be the best option to simply stop backing whatever rebels in Syria, and let Assad be in charge again. Assad, after all, is surely not a threat to America or Europe.

Is Washington never going to learn that backing whatever rebels is a dangerous thing to do. Those rebels might come back to cause a bigger problem. "

This is the problem of America....it has a big heart and is naturally a nice ally to have but on foreign affairs is consistently naive and flip flopping between who its chooses in the different regions to be friends with and that's impacts people to try to expose them and take advantage of it

You will find in Europe this doesn't exposes the USA much as the Europe region has remained stable and have little crisis to test this kind of policy

However in complicated regions like Asia and Middle East it has put the USA severely out of place and feeling a little silly for all its decisions as all well intended means turn out to be ill thought strategies

I honestly believe the best way forward for Syria is to let Assad regain control ...a small population has to suffer with a brutal regime but the majority of the country will have peace again and also the region will stabilise with one less rogue nation

It may not fit into the western ideals of fairness and equality but in the world of Middle East , it's fair enough and the people of the ME should decide on what's fairest for them not us

Article in Wall Street Journal yesterday's tells of ladies night in Saudi Arabia at the arcade centre where woman play bumper cars not to bump at each other but to have an opportunity to feel what it's like to drive ....for hours of fun , they drove to their own content and when it's over they head outside changed in their traditional clothes for their male counterparts to drive them home

This is reality in Middle East. It's not good but they can live with that ...we who are not from the Middle East are not in a position to change or challenge that.

Some feminists may argue it takes strong people to change that mindset and that's what these countries need ...strong leaders who don't worry about the popularity poll and punch the living day lights out of rogue terrorists groups , making the world a safer place for most.

That's what's people like Saddam and Assad do. They punch the rogue smaller groups so hard that the motivation to turn terrorists and bomb stuff is zero

Again under their regime small groups suffer , but you find Iraq and Syria rich and stable under their regime and the normal civilians who don't want to be terrorists can go to schools , have great education and have a peaceful life of no street fighting or bombs

Edited June 21, 2016 by LawrenceChee

[Publicus]

Some people just love dictatorship.

Always have for 5000 years, always will love dictatorship for 5000 more years.

For them more than a little tyranny is just fine....excellent in fact. The same people btw who love dictatorship detest democracy or at a minimum have a dismissive contempt of it.

Lovers of dictatorship never learn that stable dictatorships never remain stable. There are 1001 reasons a stable dictatorship never remains stable but the admirers and advocates of dictatorship forever never learn. In the 21st century dictatorship is more unpopular than ever which is why the rebellion against it in Syria began.

The Assad family and Co. were never going to last forever and neither is dictatorship per se anywhere in the world. (One does not need to be a neocon to know this.) Dictatorship has its own messiness and getting rid of dictatorship is not a tea party either.

[arjunadawn]

Washington, can you please get real as to what is actually happening.

The rebels started their rebeliion in Syria, against Assad, and a load of outsiders turned up to back the rebeliion AGAINST Assad. Had those outsiders NOT backed the rebellion, well, the rebellion would have failed. And Syria today, would still be a nation, same as before.

Who were the outsiders who backed the rebellion ? Certainly not Russia, and not China either.

So, the rebels do their rebellion, next thing we know, the rebels themselves are divided. Some of the rebels are ISIS, some are not. So, Washington backs the rebels who are not ISIS, and who are not Al-Qaeda.

Looking back, it would have been far better if all the outsiders just simply left Syria alone at the start. But no, Washington had to get involved, Washington had to back the rebels against Assad. That's what caused the Russians to back Assad.

The romantic notion that rebels started a rebellion in Syria and then outside actors got involved is not quite right. Outside actors got involved and spun up a shake and bake revolution just like every other color revolution and Arab Spring before and after. The unmistakable US NED hand is all over this alomg with state and OGA.

Syria actually existed as a nation the equivlent of a MayFly's life. No real context as a state other than what drunken drafters drew on a map.

The rebels are not like a Tito or Franco rebellion then they divided. It's untrue that a force united then divided. In the beginning it was AQ, then remnants from AQ in Iraq/Baathists, AQ forces funded and trained by US in Jordan, and AQ.

The FSA is such an absurd fiction that US army special forces will recognize the name from the fictitious exercises known as Robin Sage. Here the countries Pineland, etc, are the threat area, then theres adjacent friendly area, there's an underground, a Free Pineland Rebel group, etc. the SF train to then jump in, link up, train and advise, lead some confidence attacks, etc. The FSA is a BS name created by the same magicians who later baked up Obama's Korasan Group to focus domestic attention abroad later. (IAW with the above points the SF did train these fake FSA aka AQ at the King Abdullah Training center before 2009. This was entirely baked).

IS appeared after the US funded it, armed it, logistically supported it, endorsed it, and ran interference fir it. The US continues to support a caliphate, though marginally IS. It's actual debut was the iconic photo of hundreds of New Toyota Hiluxes complete with reinforced factory installed weapons mounts in the bed-technicals. The US bought ALL of these through State. Then- immediately- IS debuts.

This is not what caused 'the Russians to back Assad.' The Russian part at Tartus is the first clue of pre dating current evebts. Sorry to pound you, but this post has many wrong points. Yet you reach a great conclusion! The US shows have stayed the hell out.

[Publicus]

Here is an informative and perhaps revealing analysis from another pro-Putin and pro-Assad apologist who's rather upset about developments in Syria and in the anti-American sectors of the world but who nonetheless is more than rational and realistic, particularly in respect of President Obama's foreign policies.....

How did the US manage these counterblows, so quickly and so effectively? By playing down and dirty of course, putting its colossal soft and hard power to work to unravel the BRICS daydream. First it was the Ukraine coup that targeted Russia’s vital access to Crimea, forcing Putin’s hands, followed by tough western sanctions, while demonizing him as the bad guy, followed by an outright oil conspiracy with the Saudis glutting the oil market and thus delivering a devastating blow to the oil-dependent Russian economy, then targeting Russia’s Mediterranean base in Syria by playing the radical jihadist card through local proxies, and finally managing a wholly unholy regime change in Brazil, by co-conspiring with the pro-American puppets in dethroning a popularly-elected president with the lamest excuses. As a result, Brazil today is for all practical purposes fully back in the US orbit.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/23052016-is-the-brics-dream-over-oped/#comment-600471

Syria will be there too over time, more or less time but in terms of a decade or so rather than a century or two (it's only been several years to date). Russia will transform to some extent too but only after Putin is driven out because Putin is an ideological Czarist-Chekist who will never change.

So the world will continue to change despite, then without, Putin or Assad which is how it must be. Same for the rest of 'em on the Pacific-SCS side of the continent over there and their 5000 year old autocratic and privileged oligarchic elitist dictatorships.

So no matter how you look at it, democracy is stronger, better and we're only in the first 5000 years of it.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Publicus

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[tonbridgebrit]

Here is an informative and perhaps revealing analysis from another pro-Putin and pro-Assad apologist who's rather upset about developments in Syria and in the anti-American sectors of the world but who nonetheless is more than rational and realistic, particularly in respect of President Obama's foreign policies.....

Syria will be there too over time, more or less time but in terms of a decade or so rather than a century or two (it's only been several years to date). Russia will transform to some extent too but only after Putin is driven out because Putin is an ideological Czarist-Chekist who will never change.

So the world will continue to change despite, then without, Putin or Assad which is how it must be. Same for the rest of 'em on the Pacific-SCS side of the continent over there and their 5000 year old autocratic and privileged oligarchic elitist dictatorships.

So no matter how you look at it, democracy is stronger, better and we're only in the first 5000 years of it.

No one is saying that dictatorship is better than democracy.

What I am trying to say is, is that Washington has done more harm than good when we're talking about democracy in the Middle East.

That coup that Washington carried out in Iran, back in 1953. Again, I give the wikipedia link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

I repeat, Washington did a coup, that coup removed a democratically elected government of Iran, and installed a puppet Shah. It was done, the removal of democracy, because Washington wanted to control Iran's oil.

At present, Washington backs the Saudi Arabia government, selling billions of dollars of military hardware to them. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, and has little freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

To suggest that Washington is trying to spread democracy in the Middle East is laughable.

Also, removing dictatorships in Iraq, Libya and Syria has made the situation more dangerous for Europe and the USA. And those countries, Iraq, Libya and Syria, are they better off now that Washington has removed (or encouraged the removal) their dictatorships ?

[LawrenceChee]

Ask the normal citizens of Iraq and Syria and they will probably say please USA just leave our countries alone

It was great until you guys came along

[mopar71]

"Addressing an economic forum in St. Petersburg, Sergey Lavrov ..."

I can't believe some of you are giving more than 2 seconds thought to what this mafia spokesman is blabbing on about. He is nothing but a lying, Putin mouthpiece who makes Hillary Clinton sound honest in comparison every time he opens his mouth.

[Publicus]

Ask the normal citizens of Iraq and Syria and they will probably say please USA just leave our countries alone

It was great until you guys came along

CCP speaks.

[LawrenceChee]

Ask the normal citizens of Iraq and Syria and they will probably say please USA just leave our countries alone

It was great until you guys came along

CCP speaks.

Yes CCP does speak and Chinese does have opinions or is that wrong now on a public forum ?

Does USA still believe in free speech or is that just democracy hypocrites and rubbish ?

The flip flopping shows so far for foreign affairs in the Middle East , you guys are clueless

[Kiwiken]

Ask the normal citizens of Iraq and Syria and they will probably say please USA just leave our countries alone

It was great until you guys came along

CCP speaks.

Yes CCP does speak and Chinese does have opinions or is that wrong now on a public forum ?

Does USA still believe in free speech or is that just democracy hypocrites and rubbish ?

The flip flopping shows so far for foreign affairs in the Middle East , you guys are clueless

America does not seek stability anywhere in the World which is why they interefere and destabilise. Syria has Gas and Oil. The USA wants control . It does not want democracy there just control so US Capitalists can make their money. But like Rome on which it is based on the USA is passed its time.

[Publicus]

Ask the normal citizens of Iraq and Syria and they will probably say please USA just leave our countries alone

It was great until you guys came along

CCP speaks.

Yes CCP does speak and Chinese does have opinions or is that wrong now on a public forum ?

Does USA still believe in free speech or is that just democracy hypocrites and rubbish ?

The flip flopping shows so far for foreign affairs in the Middle East , you guys are clueless

You have all the free speech the Forum Rules allow -- all of us have it.

You're already wrong about Putin, Russia, Syria, the USA-West so you should really try not to be off the wall wrong about your right of free speech either.

You don't have free speech in the CCP China but you do have it here and if you think I would try to deny it to you, then you'd be completely lost in these threads and forums. Well, you are a total troll as it is but that is just one opinion.

[Publicus]

Ask the normal citizens of Iraq and Syria and they will probably say please USA just leave our countries alone

It was great until you guys came along

CCP speaks.

Yes CCP does speak and Chinese does have opinions or is that wrong now on a public forum ?

Does USA still believe in free speech or is that just democracy hypocrites and rubbish ?

The flip flopping shows so far for foreign affairs in the Middle East , you guys are clueless

America does not seek stability anywhere in the World which is why they interefere and destabilise. Syria has Gas and Oil. The USA wants control . It does not want democracy there just control so US Capitalists can make their money. But like Rome on which it is based on the USA is passed its time.

Rome wasn't built in a day and now it is ancient history.

USA wasn't built in a day either and it is the future, your future.

The Putin fanboyz and the CCP fanboyz desperately want otherwise, however, CCP is going the way of the USSR/CCCP same as Putin is in his darkness.

The people who are now the 21st century global right have always been on the losing side of history. CCP and Putin are going the way of the USSR/CCCP -- Beijing because it is another moribund one-party state, and Putin and his Russia because Putin is a Czarist-Chekist on Soviet overstay. The extreme far armband right has never had a future nor does it have anything better going on for it now than it has had in the past.

Look into the future to seem me standing there waving goodbye to youse guyz.