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

[IMA_FARANG]

it looks to me like another Vietnam at the beginning.

-----------------------

Nonsense

Russia has always, since the days of the Tsars, wanted a warm water port for their Naval fleet.

This is simply an extension of that old game, they want influence, trade partners, and military space for their Air Force and Navy units with a warm water port in the Middle East.

Just another extension of the old "Game of Thrones" action between the Russians and the U.S. and it's allies.

Back in the 19th century the Brits played that game also.....but then in 1916 during world war 1 they lost their Empire and much oft their best young men in the trenches in France.

Now the Brits don't play that game any more.

[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.

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.

Hello arjunadawn.

I do not clam to know exactly what is going on in Syria, and I thank you for your interesting and informative writing here.

What I do know is, is the picture being painted by most of the media in Britain and Europe. Basically, from our televisions, a load of rebels in Syria rose up and rebelled against Assad in Syria. Later on, the media was saying that some of the rebels are actually part of a group called ISIS. But not all the rebels are in ISIS.

So, we have Assad in charge. The rebels are there, some of the rebels are ISIS, some are not ISIS. And ISIS are the guys that America and Europe don't like. So, Washington and Europe are backing the rebels, but NOT the ISIS rebels. So, the rebels who are not ISIS, they're fighting against ISIS and Assad.

So, it's a three-way war. There's Assad, there's ISIS, and there's the rebels who are not ISIS. And Washington is backing the rebels who are not ISIS. And Britain, off-course, is following America. It wasn't long ago, when the British government wanted to carry out bombing missions in Syria, but there was that vote in parliament, and that vote went against Britain doing bombing missions in Syria.

However, later on, British aircraft were involved in bombing Syria.

The interesting point to me is, is who are the rebels that are being backed by Washington ? These are the same rebels being backed by Britain and Europe. They are not ISIS and they are not Al Qaeda. Who are they ?

And these rebels being backed by Washington. I know that Saudi Arabia are certainly involved, Saudi Arabia are financing some rebel groups. Are these the same rebel groups that are being supported by Washington ? Surely, they are ?

[tonbridgebrit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/us-support-for-al-qaeda-l_b_10089410.html



Okay, above is a link from the Huffington Post and World Post.

So, who are the rebels in Syria, doing their rebellion against the Assad government ?


There are many groups, amongst them, there's ISIS, and also some guys called the Nusra Front. The Nusra Front is actually a branch of Al Qaeda in Syria.




Now then, there's two groups, one called Ahrar al-Sham and another one called Jaysh al-Islam, these groups are backed by Washington. Saudi Arabia and Turkey also back these two groups. These two groups are suspected of working alongside the Nusra Front !!!!!
These guys want Assad removed, yes, but they want the new Syria to be country with Sharia Law, they're not interested in democracy.


A quote from the article "American media outlets, including CNN, the Associated Press and the Washington Post, among others, have consistently propagated the fictional narrative that the United States is supporting “moderate opposition forces” on the battlefield and in the peace talks in Geneva."

And another quote "Washington is following the exact same playbook employed during the jihad against the Soviets in the 1980s, in just one example, wherein we supported the most radical and virulently anti-Western factions within the mujahideen to achieve geopolitical ends at all costs, leading to the well-documented blowback known as Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda."


So, it appears to be that Washington is actually backing people who are not interested in a democratic and non-religious Syria.
Is Washington in danger of creating a new Osama bin Laden ?

[Kiwiken]

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.

Please name one true Democracy on Earth. One that is not controlled by political parties which are in fact de facto faces for big Business? or Pressure groups but by there makeup actually no representative of the Nation Whole. A true Democracy is One where the Government manages on behalf of the people but like a Company should defer to the Shareholders (People) when making Social changes, or selling that which belongs to the people. The USA ceased to be a democracy when you allowed big Business to Finance Parties. It is Rome and Rome shall fall again

[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.

Please name one true Democracy on Earth. One that is not controlled by political parties which are in fact de facto faces for big Business? or Pressure groups but by there makeup actually no representative of the Nation Whole. A true Democracy is One where the Government manages on behalf of the people but like a Company should defer to the Shareholders (People) when making Social changes, or selling that which belongs to the people. The USA ceased to be a democracy when you allowed big Business to Finance Parties. It is Rome and Rome shall fall again

Anyone who wants 'true' anything is in for a long and hard hunt that is always problematic at best.

We do however have real dictatorship in numerous places, as has been true for thousands of years. Some certain people want to continue dictatorship for thousands more of years....in fact they see dictatorship as the one and only true condition of society.

Putin has his own kind of dictatorship which he once tried to describe as the "dictatorship of democracy."

Putin and his ludicrous 'dictatorship of democracy' antipathy derives from the fact Putin was and remains a Czarist-Chekist. His heroes are emperors such as Ivan the Terrible and Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat."

It is easy to forget Putin's 'dictatorship of democracy' nonsense because of its absurdity and its assinine [sic] nature, however, it is on the other hand such a sore thumb notion of governance that it becomes unforgettable about Vladimir Putin and his Czarist and Chekist Russia of the 21st century.

Modern and practical democracy is only a couple of hundred years old and it is constantly changing, i.e. improving. It is the people who improve it, and in the USA where we have a liberal democracy in our Republic, the liberal idea always wins out in the end. And the end of the illiberal idea keeps occurring sooner than in a dictatorship, faster than in a dictatorship, and with a greater frequency and quality.

So we are off to a good start with democracy during this early and young period of its first 5000 years. (USA and France believe it or not.)

[LawrenceChee]

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.

Please name one true Democracy on Earth. One that is not controlled by political parties which are in fact de facto faces for big Business? or Pressure groups but by there makeup actually no representative of the Nation Whole. A true Democracy is One where the Government manages on behalf of the people but like a Company should defer to the Shareholders (People) when making Social changes, or selling that which belongs to the people. The USA ceased to be a democracy when you allowed big Business to Finance Parties. It is Rome and Rome shall fall again

Anyone who wants 'true' anything is in for a long and hard hunt that is always problematic at best.

We do however have real dictatorship in numerous places, as has been true for thousands of years. Some certain people want to continue dictatorship for thousands more of years....in fact they see dictatorship as the one and only true condition of society.

Putin has his own kind of dictatorship which he once tried to describe as the "dictatorship of democracy."

Putin and his ludicrous 'dictatorship of democracy' antipathy derives from the fact Putin was and remains a Czarist-Chekist. His heroes are emperors such as Ivan the Terrible and Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat."

It is easy to forget Putin's 'dictatorship of democracy' nonsense because of its absurdity and its assinine [sic] nature, however, it is on the other hand such a sore thumb notion of governance that it becomes unforgettable about Vladimir Putin and his Czarist and Chekist Russia of the 21st century.

Modern and practical democracy is only a couple of hundred years old and it is constantly changing, i.e. improving. It is the people who improve it, and in the USA where we have a liberal democracy in our Republic, the liberal idea always wins out in the end. And the end of the illiberal idea keeps occurring sooner than in a dictatorship, faster than in a dictatorship, and with a greater frequency and quality.

So we are off to a good start with democracy during this early and young period of its first 5000 years. (USA and France believe it or not.)

Liberal Ideas ?

When was the last a liberal candidate was fielded and won the POTUS ? Or is democracy squashed between the ideals of being democratic or republican and there is no more choices beyond that ?

Better to be more humble than brag about non reality ideas ..CCP respects the Scandinavian model or British model more the the US one as models to replicate elements that will make governance in China better for its people

[Publicus]

Please name one true Democracy on Earth. One that is not controlled by political parties which are in fact de facto faces for big Business? or Pressure groups but by there makeup actually no representative of the Nation Whole. A true Democracy is One where the Government manages on behalf of the people but like a Company should defer to the Shareholders (People) when making Social changes, or selling that which belongs to the people. The USA ceased to be a democracy when you allowed big Business to Finance Parties. It is Rome and Rome shall fall again

Anyone who wants 'true' anything is in for a long and hard hunt that is always problematic at best.

We do however have real dictatorship in numerous places, as has been true for thousands of years. Some certain people want to continue dictatorship for thousands more of years....in fact they see dictatorship as the one and only true condition of society.

Putin has his own kind of dictatorship which he once tried to describe as the "dictatorship of democracy."

Putin and his ludicrous 'dictatorship of democracy' antipathy derives from the fact Putin was and remains a Czarist-Chekist. His heroes are emperors such as Ivan the Terrible and Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat."

It is easy to forget Putin's 'dictatorship of democracy' nonsense because of its absurdity and its assinine [sic] nature, however, it is on the other hand such a sore thumb notion of governance that it becomes unforgettable about Vladimir Putin and his Czarist and Chekist Russia of the 21st century.

Modern and practical democracy is only a couple of hundred years old and it is constantly changing, i.e. improving. It is the people who improve it, and in the USA where we have a liberal democracy in our Republic, the liberal idea always wins out in the end. And the end of the illiberal idea keeps occurring sooner than in a dictatorship, faster than in a dictatorship, and with a greater frequency and quality.

So we are off to a good start with democracy during this early and young period of its first 5000 years. (USA and France believe it or not.)

Liberal Ideas ?

When was the last a liberal candidate was fielded and won the POTUS ? Or is democracy squashed between the ideals of being democratic or republican and there is no more choices beyond that ?

Better to be more humble than brag about non reality ideas ..CCP respects the Scandinavian model or British model more the the US one as models to replicate elements that will make governance in China better for its people

Classic Western Liberalism, not a particular political party in a number of democracies. Classic Western Liberalism that, at its core, places the individual ahead of and above the state.

Better to be more humble

People who are themselves humble refrain from lecturing or scolding others into being humble. Your posts to all threads are anything but humble. China is big and other countries are small, remember? The big fish eat the little fish, right? It's always been so, right.

Get a grip anyway cause the thread and its topic is Russia, Syria, al Qaeda and the US. Peddle the Chinese superiority stuff at some other TV forum or site.

[LawrenceChee]

Please name one true Democracy on Earth. One that is not controlled by political parties which are in fact de facto faces for big Business? or Pressure groups but by there makeup actually no representative of the Nation Whole. A true Democracy is One where the Government manages on behalf of the people but like a Company should defer to the Shareholders (People) when making Social changes, or selling that which belongs to the people. The USA ceased to be a democracy when you allowed big Business to Finance Parties. It is Rome and Rome shall fall again

Anyone who wants 'true' anything is in for a long and hard hunt that is always problematic at best.

We do however have real dictatorship in numerous places, as has been true for thousands of years. Some certain people want to continue dictatorship for thousands more of years....in fact they see dictatorship as the one and only true condition of society.

Putin has his own kind of dictatorship which he once tried to describe as the "dictatorship of democracy."

Putin and his ludicrous 'dictatorship of democracy' antipathy derives from the fact Putin was and remains a Czarist-Chekist. His heroes are emperors such as Ivan the Terrible and Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat."

It is easy to forget Putin's 'dictatorship of democracy' nonsense because of its absurdity and its assinine [sic] nature, however, it is on the other hand such a sore thumb notion of governance that it becomes unforgettable about Vladimir Putin and his Czarist and Chekist Russia of the 21st century.

Modern and practical democracy is only a couple of hundred years old and it is constantly changing, i.e. improving. It is the people who improve it, and in the USA where we have a liberal democracy in our Republic, the liberal idea always wins out in the end. And the end of the illiberal idea keeps occurring sooner than in a dictatorship, faster than in a dictatorship, and with a greater frequency and quality.

So we are off to a good start with democracy during this early and young period of its first 5000 years. (USA and France believe it or not.)

Liberal Ideas ?

When was the last a liberal candidate was fielded and won the POTUS ? Or is democracy squashed between the ideals of being democratic or republican and there is no more choices beyond that ?

Better to be more humble than brag about non reality ideas ..CCP respects the Scandinavian model or British model more the the US one as models to replicate elements that will make governance in China better for its people

Classic Western Liberalism, not a particular political party in a number of democracies. Classic Western Liberalism that, at its core, places the individual ahead of and above the state.

Better to be more humble

People who are themselves humble refrain from lecturing or scolding others into being humble. Your posts to all threads are anything but humble. China is big and other countries are small, remember? The big fish eat the little fish, right? It's always been so, right.

Get a grip anyway cause the thread and its topic is Russia, Syria, al Qaeda and the US. Peddle the Chinese superiority stuff at some other TV forum or site.

No mention of Chinese being superior whereas you seem to enjoy telling everyone on this site how superior USA is blah blah blah without a good self reflection that it's not the best in perfection

If you feel that "telling someone to be more humble " is a scolding and lecturing, then again you have missed the Asian way of thoughts as reflective and sharing and taken that line perhaps because of a false sense of self confidence

Telling people to get a grip always seem to also perhaps reflect an internal fear and realisation that the sun has set on the influence USA has and the golden years of being the solo world power was a naive perception that people could have played you for line sink and hook.

Back to the topic - USA is no doubt a great nation with a good heart but the problematic habit of interfering without understanding is a classic example of why most of its foreign interferences including Syria of backing who it feels is the right non ISIS group and arming them would later cause grieve and another terrorist group the USA have misjudged for its "good " intentions

[Publicus]

The US right that used to praise Putin as, at a minimum, a strongman leader has recently fallen mostly silent due to Putin's misadventures in Syria where Putin's been unsuccessful and after Ukraine where Putin has failed in his attempt to change the borders of Europe by force for the first time since the 1930s to include World War II.

The reality is that Putin in Syria is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism despite Putin's willingness to bomb anyone in Syria to include civilians, which also adds to the Putin caused death toll in Ukraine and the Russian soldiers who have died there too. All for the Czarist-Chekist Putin and for Russia the mother.

The right had praised Putin, condemned the United States while excusing Assad as a dictator but, hey, a secular one. Assad is a dictator and a tyrant but he's just fine over there on the American right as long as he stays an Alawite. Assad is not one of those Saudi guyz who while being religious crackpots are none the less aligned with the United States (for better and for worse).

On the US right, being for the US is bad, being against it is good.

Strange stuff over there on the right. Indeed.

[tonbridgebrit]

The US right that used to praise Putin as, at a minimum, a strongman leader has recently fallen mostly silent due to Putin's misadventures in Syria where Putin's been unsuccessful and after Ukraine where Putin has failed in his attempt to change the borders of Europe by force for the first time since the 1930s to include World War II.

The reality is that Putin in Syria is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism despite Putin's willingness to bomb anyone in Syria to include civilians, which also adds to the Putin caused death toll in Ukraine and the Russian soldiers who have died there too. All for the Czarist-Chekist Putin and for Russia the mother.

The right had praised Putin, condemned the United States while excusing Assad as a dictator but, hey, a secular one. Assad is a dictator and a tyrant but he's just fine over there on the American right as long as he stays an Alawite. Assad is not one of those Saudi guyz who while being religious crackpots are none the less aligned with the United States (for better and for worse).

On the US right, being for the US is bad, being against it is good.

Strange stuff over there on the right. Indeed.

"The reality is that Putin in Syria is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism".

"Assad is not one of those Saudi guyz who while being religious crackpots are none the less aligned with the United States".

And those two quotes speak loudly for the 'messed up' policy that Washington has in Syria !!!

Yes, Putin is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism. Putin is supporting Assad, and bombing the rebels, Putin wants Assad to survive. Assad is a secular dictator, who is harmless to America and Europe.

Now then, you yourself say that the Saudi giyz are religious crackpots. But hey, they are aligned with the United States.

Look, Ahrar al-Sham is one of the major rebel groups that is fighting against Assad. Here's the wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_al-Sham

Ahrar al-Sham works alongside the Nusra Front, and the Nusra Front are actually Al Qaeda's branch in Syria. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are backing and supporting Ahrar al-Sham. Ahrar al-Sham is not actually interested in creating a new democratic Syria. Saudi Arabia's government s not interested in creating a new democratic Saudi Arabia. Ahrar al-Sham wants to create a new Syria, with no democracy, and it will be a society based on religion (Islam), a bit like Saudi Arabia. Oh, Saudi Arabia supports them.

And Ahrar al-Sham are linked to Al Qaeda !! Given the choice, would you prefer Assad controlling Syria, OR, an Islamic group that is linked to Al Qaeda ??

You prefer a group who are similar to the 'religious crackpots' of Saudi Arabia, and who are linked to Al Qaeda, rather than Assad ? And that's because those religious crackpots are more aligned with the United States ??

What is this ? Is Washington deliberately trying to create a new Osama bin Laden ??

[LawrenceChee]

The US right that used to praise Putin as, at a minimum, a strongman leader has recently fallen mostly silent due to Putin's misadventures in Syria where Putin's been unsuccessful and after Ukraine where Putin has failed in his attempt to change the borders of Europe by force for the first time since the 1930s to include World War II.

The reality is that Putin in Syria is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism despite Putin's willingness to bomb anyone in Syria to include civilians, which also adds to the Putin caused death toll in Ukraine and the Russian soldiers who have died there too. All for the Czarist-Chekist Putin and for Russia the mother.

The right had praised Putin, condemned the United States while excusing Assad as a dictator but, hey, a secular one. Assad is a dictator and a tyrant but he's just fine over there on the American right as long as he stays an Alawite. Assad is not one of those Saudi guyz who while being religious crackpots are none the less aligned with the United States (for better and for worse).

On the US right, being for the US is bad, being against it is good.

Strange stuff over there on the right. Indeed.

"The reality is that Putin in Syria is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism".

"Assad is not one of those Saudi guyz who while being religious crackpots are none the less aligned with the United States".

And those two quotes speak loudly for the 'messed up' policy that Washington has in Syria !!!

Yes, Putin is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism. Putin is supporting Assad, and bombing the rebels, Putin wants Assad to survive. Assad is a secular dictator, who is harmless to America and Europe.

Now then, you yourself say that the Saudi giyz are religious crackpots. But hey, they are aligned with the United States.

Look, Ahrar al-Sham is one of the major rebel groups that is fighting against Assad. Here's the wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_al-Sham

Ahrar al-Sham works alongside the Nusra Front, and the Nusra Front are actually Al Qaeda's branch in Syria. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are backing and supporting Ahrar al-Sham. Ahrar al-Sham is not actually interested in creating a new democratic Syria. Saudi Arabia's government s not interested in creating a new democratic Saudi Arabia. Ahrar al-Sham wants to create a new Syria, with no democracy, and it will be a society based on religion (Islam), a bit like Saudi Arabia. Oh, Saudi Arabia supports them.

And Ahrar al-Sham are linked to Al Qaeda !! Given the choice, would you prefer Assad controlling Syria, OR, an Islamic group that is linked to Al Qaeda ??

You prefer a group who are similar to the 'religious crackpots' of Saudi Arabia, and who are linked to Al Qaeda, rather than Assad ? And that's because those religious crackpots are more aligned with the United States ??

What is this ? Is Washington deliberately trying to create a new Osama bin Laden ??

In a twisted way ....probably the answer is yes ....you do need the chaos to continue bombing so that the arms factories in USA can purr , continue to make money and support the political parties financially

[Kiwiken]

The US right that used to praise Putin as, at a minimum, a strongman leader has recently fallen mostly silent due to Putin's misadventures in Syria where Putin's been unsuccessful and after Ukraine where Putin has failed in his attempt to change the borders of Europe by force for the first time since the 1930s to include World War II.

The reality is that Putin in Syria is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism despite Putin's willingness to bomb anyone in Syria to include civilians, which also adds to the Putin caused death toll in Ukraine and the Russian soldiers who have died there too. All for the Czarist-Chekist Putin and for Russia the mother.

The right had praised Putin, condemned the United States while excusing Assad as a dictator but, hey, a secular one. Assad is a dictator and a tyrant but he's just fine over there on the American right as long as he stays an Alawite. Assad is not one of those Saudi guyz who while being religious crackpots are none the less aligned with the United States (for better and for worse).

On the US right, being for the US is bad, being against it is good.

Strange stuff over there on the right. Indeed.

"The reality is that Putin in Syria is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism".

"Assad is not one of those Saudi guyz who while being religious crackpots are none the less aligned with the United States".

And those two quotes speak loudly for the 'messed up' policy that Washington has in Syria !!!

Yes, Putin is no better than anyone else against terrorists and terrorism. Putin is supporting Assad, and bombing the rebels, Putin wants Assad to survive. Assad is a secular dictator, who is harmless to America and Europe.

Now then, you yourself say that the Saudi giyz are religious crackpots. But hey, they are aligned with the United States.

Look, Ahrar al-Sham is one of the major rebel groups that is fighting against Assad. Here's the wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_al-Sham

Ahrar al-Sham works alongside the Nusra Front, and the Nusra Front are actually Al Qaeda's branch in Syria. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are backing and supporting Ahrar al-Sham. Ahrar al-Sham is not actually interested in creating a new democratic Syria. Saudi Arabia's government s not interested in creating a new democratic Saudi Arabia. Ahrar al-Sham wants to create a new Syria, with no democracy, and it will be a society based on religion (Islam), a bit like Saudi Arabia. Oh, Saudi Arabia supports them.

And Ahrar al-Sham are linked to Al Qaeda !! Given the choice, would you prefer Assad controlling Syria, OR, an Islamic group that is linked to Al Qaeda ??

You prefer a group who are similar to the 'religious crackpots' of Saudi Arabia, and who are linked to Al Qaeda, rather than Assad ? And that's because those religious crackpots are more aligned with the United States ??

What is this ? Is Washington deliberately trying to create a new Osama bin Laden ??

In a twisted way ....probably the answer is yes ....you do need the chaos to continue bombing so that the arms factories in USA can purr , continue to make money and support the political parties financially

And of course conveniently ignore that the majority of those involved in 9/11 were Saudis

[Publicus]

Putin fanboyz.

Putin put his Air Force to work in Syria bombing US supported rebels while mostly ignoring ISIS. Now after several months Putin is pulling out cause his Air Force is falling apart in the sky.

From the OP.....

A senior U.S. defense official said Thursday that Russian aircraft conducted a series of airstrikes near al-Tanf against U.S.-backed Syrian forces.

The official said that Russian aircraft haven't been active in that area of southern Syria for some time, and there were no Syrian regime or Russian ground forces in the vicinity.

The official said the strikes raise serious concerns about Russian intentions and that the U.S. has asked Moscow for an explanation and assurances it won't happen again...

Putin and his fanboyz seem not to recognise or understand that while rebel groups are self-sustaining to various extents, rebel groups are also supported, whether it is domestically or by foreign participants, or both. Rebel groups can be disappeared as quickly a they were appeared. Either by a peace process or a process of elimination in the strictest meaning of the word. So there is a much greater component of control in this than the Putin fanboyz are able or willing to recognise or acknowledge.

[LomSak27]

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.

NOT at all Poindexter ----------------

No one denies that the USA funded the coup against Mosadegh which put the Shah in power, However you seem to have missed a bit of history in your WIKI wonkattack.

It was the British who made that infamous walk down the block to Kermit Roosevelts office to convince the Americans that Mosaddegh was a dangerous communists and needed to be removed. Why was that? Because Iran had started to Nationalize British Petroleum’s concessions> England at this time had gunboats on the Shatt el arab waterway and yes were shooting at the Iranians. The Americans and Kermit R, funded the coupd, but no one has ever said that the plan was American. In fatc by all accounts the Brits already had a plan they just needed the funding from the Americans. You can understand why the Brits who get all morally superior about coups, don't like to talk about thier role in the "US Iranian coup" in fact its better to just forget about their own involvement and planning of it ... heh

Nothing that different really, than when the BRITISH and SOVIETS removed the Shahs daddy during WWII because he was deemed too sympathetic to the Nazis.

Getting oil concessions happened afterwards and was a result of the Iranians not wanting to give them back to the Brits.

Back to the books

Edited June 29, 2016 by LomSak27

[Publicus]

Putin has pulled out all his Air Force fighters deployed to Syria after September 30 of last year. Those craft are worn out and their weakly trained pilots exhausted. So is Putin's war budget literally spent.

Putin has had his military operating at maximum capacity and continually and its brought him to the end of his rope in Syria. Assad's army has disappointed Putin and his military high command due to its continued weak and poor performance. Putin had counted heavily on a rejuvenated Assad army on the ground to complement his air strikes, but neither the planned revival nor the dreamed up matchup have occurred.

President Obama is prepared to increase support for rebels, a factor which is further driving Putin and Assad to seek a negotiated settlement. However, US and partners in Syria know the longer they string out Putin and Assad the weaker they will be going into any discussions in Switzerland.

Here is an analysis of it from Chatham House which is the highly respected center of military intelligence and analysis in the UK dating back from before the Cold War that Russia lost....

The Russian withdrawal demonstrates that Moscow’s military intervention in Syria was largely about keeping the Assad regime in power and making the West look flat-footed. It was not about defeating Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as claimed. Putin declared the military pullback while ISIS still retains control of a large part of Syrian territory − the group only lost 14–20 per cent of its territory in 2015 because Russian air forces never considered them the major target. Instead, Russia concentrated its firepower against those opposition groupings that represented the greatest threat to the Assad regime.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/russia-s-withdrawal-syria-nothing-kind#sthash.eI2LjWHf.dpuf

Putin knows he cannot and must not commit to keeping Assad in power for as long as the Kremlin and KGB and GRU kept the Afghan government in power from 1979 to 92 when it finally got run out of Kabul. The Chekist Putin knows full well what the consequences were of Soviet Russia's long committment to a puppet regime in a disabled and barren nation.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Publicus

[Morch]

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

"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"

What "small population" is referred to?

"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"

Syria was rich? Iraqis, in general, were rich? Great education?

[Morch]

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

Asking people what they want is not a great tradition in the Middle East.

As for the opinions of "normal" (whatever that stands for) citizens, doubtful that they would be well informed or free to express their views.

Life was just great in the good old days. Right....

[Morch]

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.

Hello arjunadawn.

I do not clam to know exactly what is going on in Syria, and I thank you for your interesting and informative writing here.

What I do know is, is the picture being painted by most of the media in Britain and Europe. Basically, from our televisions, a load of rebels in Syria rose up and rebelled against Assad in Syria. Later on, the media was saying that some of the rebels are actually part of a group called ISIS. But not all the rebels are in ISIS.

So, we have Assad in charge. The rebels are there, some of the rebels are ISIS, some are not ISIS. And ISIS are the guys that America and Europe don't like. So, Washington and Europe are backing the rebels, but NOT the ISIS rebels. So, the rebels who are not ISIS, they're fighting against ISIS and Assad.

So, it's a three-way war. There's Assad, there's ISIS, and there's the rebels who are not ISIS. And Washington is backing the rebels who are not ISIS. And Britain, off-course, is following America. It wasn't long ago, when the British government wanted to carry out bombing missions in Syria, but there was that vote in parliament, and that vote went against Britain doing bombing missions in Syria.

However, later on, British aircraft were involved in bombing Syria.

The interesting point to me is, is who are the rebels that are being backed by Washington ? These are the same rebels being backed by Britain and Europe. They are not ISIS and they are not Al Qaeda. Who are they ?

And these rebels being backed by Washington. I know that Saudi Arabia are certainly involved, Saudi Arabia are financing some rebel groups. Are these the same rebel groups that are being supported by Washington ? Surely, they are ?

There were, are and will be shifts in alliances among combating factions. There's also constant splintering of existing groups, local variations of my enemy's enemy is my friend, etc. Whole clans, groups, organizations and units sometimes switch sides, Officially opposing sides hold commercial ties.

The illusion of constancy, especially when it comes to non-government forces, is a product of the media, the public and governments, having trouble of coping with the level of chaos involved.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

In a twisted way ....probably the answer is yes ....you do need the chaos to continue bombing so that the arms factories in USA can purr , continue to make money and support the political parties financially

Russia's campaign in Syria leads to arms sake windfall

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/29/russias-campaign-in-syria-leads-to-arms-sale-windfall

Russia Eyes New Weapons Sales Of $6B As Part Of Syria 'Marketing Effect'

http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-eyes-new-weapons-sales-6b-part-syria-marketing-effect-2344704

[tonbridgebrit]

Putin fanboyz.

Putin put his Air Force to work in Syria bombing US supported rebels while mostly ignoring ISIS. Now after several months Putin is pulling out cause his Air Force is falling apart in the sky.

From the OP.....

A senior U.S. defense official said Thursday that Russian aircraft conducted a series of airstrikes near al-Tanf against U.S.-backed Syrian forces.

The official said that Russian aircraft haven't been active in that area of southern Syria for some time, and there were no Syrian regime or Russian ground forces in the vicinity.

The official said the strikes raise serious concerns about Russian intentions and that the U.S. has asked Moscow for an explanation and assurances it won't happen again...

Putin and his fanboyz seem not to recognise or understand that while rebel groups are self-sustaining to various extents, rebel groups are also supported, whether it is domestically or by foreign participants, or both. Rebel groups can be disappeared as quickly a they were appeared. Either by a peace process or a process of elimination in the strictest meaning of the word. So there is a much greater component of control in this than the Putin fanboyz are able or willing to recognise or acknowledge.

Publicus, I have not used the word "Washington cheerleader", but you have brought out the term "Putin fanboyz".

"A senior U.S. defense official said Thursday that Russian aircraft conducted a series of airstrikes near al-Tanf against U.S.-backed Syrian forces. "

Well, yes, Russia is tryng to support Assad, we all know that, so, Russia is bombing the rebels. In this case, Russia is bombing the US-backed Syrian forces (or rebels). Those US-backed Syrian forces are rebelling against Assad, that's why Russia is bombing them.

"Putin and his fanboyz seem not to recognise or understand that while rebel groups are self-sustaining to various extents, rebel groups are also supported, whether it is domestically or by foreign participants, or both."

Publicus, we all know that rebel groups can only fight BECAUSE they are supported by domestic or foreign groups. IF all foreign support being given to the rebels was to stop, well, yes, the rebellion would be over quickly. We know that.

"Rebel groups can be disappeared as quickly as they were appeared. Either by a peace process or a process of elimination in the strictest meaning of the word."

Publicus, I'm tempted to say that your comment is laughable, but I won't, because this is not actually funny !! So, the rebel groups can be disappeared quickly ? Once Assad has gone, they can be disappeared ? They can be disappeared by a peace process ? And if they refuse to accept peace after Assad has gone, well, they can be disappeared by elimination in the strictest meaning of the word ? What on earth does that mean ? Do you mean that Washington might bomb those rebels if they are a problem after Assad has gone ?

Publicus, back in the 1980s, Washington backed and supported a load of rebels in Afghanistan. The rebels were fighting against the Russians. The newspapers do actually claim that some of those rebels went on to take-over Afghanistan after the Russians stopped fighting. Some of the rebels became the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The media claims that Al-Qaeda did the 9/11 attacks. America ended up invading Afghanistan about a decade after the Russians had left. Washington ended up being in Afghanistan for over a decade. Are Washington still in Afghanistan today ??

Publicus, in Afghanistan, it was not actually easy to 'disappear' the rebels, bearing in mind that the rebels became a problem after the Russians had left.

I really do hope that the rebels in Syria do not become a problem after the Russians have gone back to Russia.

[tonbridgebrit]

The enemy of my enemy of my enemy of my enemy is the friend of my friend of my ,........oh never mind, it's the Middle East, everyone is buggering everyone else, ......or wants to be.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend ?? Yes, this is a basic principle of war or any conflict.

But let's look at Afghanistan. Back in 1979, there was a pro-USSR government in Afghanistan, and a load of rebels doing their rebellion. The Afghan government asked the Russians to help them, and so Russian soldiers went. Next thing we know, Americawas backing and supporting the rebels. Yes, the enemy (Afghan rebels) of my enemy (the Russians) is my friend.

By the late 1980s, the war was over. Those rebels, some of them called the mujahideen, some of the mujahideen took over Afghanistan later on. Them Taliban people were, supposedly, in the mujahideen. It was later on, when Al Qaeda and the Taliban became a problem. They went and did the 9/11 attacks, and this meant that America had to invade and occupy Afghanistan. The "War on Terror" we're seeing today, well, them terrorists are, supposedly, linked to the rebels tha Washington backed in the 1980s.

And today, we have Syria. The Al-Nusra Front is actually the Al-Qaeda branch in Syria. And Washington is backing groups who work alongside the Al-Nusra Front. These rebels are rebelling against Assad. I hope history does not repeat itself.

Yes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But later on, my friend becomes an even bigger problem than the original enemy. That is a big problem.

[Publicus]

Publicus, I have not used the word "Washington cheerleader", but you have brought out the term "Putin fanboyz".

"A senior U.S. defense official said Thursday that Russian aircraft conducted a series of airstrikes near al-Tanf against U.S.-backed Syrian forces. "

Well, yes, Russia is tryng to support Assad, we all know that, so, Russia is bombing the rebels. In this case, Russia is bombing the US-backed Syrian forces (or rebels). Those US-backed Syrian forces are rebelling against Assad, that's why Russia is bombing them.

"Putin and his fanboyz seem not to recognise or understand that while rebel groups are self-sustaining to various extents, rebel groups are also supported, whether it is domestically or by foreign participants, or both."

Publicus, we all know that rebel groups can only fight BECAUSE they are supported by domestic or foreign groups. IF all foreign support being given to the rebels was to stop, well, yes, the rebellion would be over quickly. We know that.

"Rebel groups can be disappeared as quickly as they were appeared. Either by a peace process or a process of elimination in the strictest meaning of the word."

Publicus, I'm tempted to say that your comment is laughable, but I won't, because this is not actually funny !! So, the rebel groups can be disappeared quickly ? Once Assad has gone, they can be disappeared ? They can be disappeared by a peace process ? And if they refuse to accept peace after Assad has gone, well, they can be disappeared by elimination in the strictest meaning of the word ? What on earth does that mean ? Do you mean that Washington might bomb those rebels if they are a problem after Assad has gone ?

Publicus, back in the 1980s, Washington backed and supported a load of rebels in Afghanistan. The rebels were fighting against the Russians. The newspapers do actually claim that some of those rebels went on to take-over Afghanistan after the Russians stopped fighting. Some of the rebels became the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The media claims that Al-Qaeda did the 9/11 attacks. America ended up invading Afghanistan about a decade after the Russians had left. Washington ended up being in Afghanistan for over a decade. Are Washington still in Afghanistan today ??

Publicus, in Afghanistan, it was not actually easy to 'disappear' the rebels, bearing in mind that the rebels became a problem after the Russians had left.

I really do hope that the rebels in Syria do not become a problem after the Russians have gone back to Russia.

Publicus, I have not used the word "Washington cheerleader", but you have brought out the term "Putin fanboyz"

Yep, I do use the term "Putin Fanboyz." Almost everyone knows which side this poster is on so I just want to be on the record as to which side youse guyz over there would be on as you let 'em off the hook every time whilst focusing over here on the USA only. You yourself can continue to try to lecture and scold as if you were Putin Himself or you can try a different approach -- up to you. (I removed you from the Ignore House of Shame so I could yet again try to address the issue.)

Case in point as you repeatedly belabor the obvious....

Publicus, back in the 1980s, Washington backed and supported a load of rebels in Afghanistan. Some of the rebels became the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The media claims that Al-Qaeda did the 9/11 attacks. America ended up invading Afghanistan about a decade after the Russians had left. Washington ended up being in Afghanistan for over a decade. Are Washington still in Afghanistan today ??

President Obama has kept the US out of the ME or South Asia in ever decreasing ways. That's what he'd been elected to do and he's done it. Washington has learned a few lessons from misadventures abroad and from the reaction of the American people to it all. When you've learned something I'll be sure to let you know.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Publicus

[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

Asking people what they want is not a great tradition in the Middle East.

As for the opinions of "normal" (whatever that stands for) citizens, doubtful that they would be well informed or free to express their views.

Life was just great in the good old days. Right....

I think the answer was yes...kids could go to school...there was no bombings....the streets were safer for the bigger population and people could do what they wanted to do in a normal life...go to a cafe, send their kids to schools...

so you are saying that the ability to express a view freely overweigh the ability to have a normal life ? That is strangely one sided...poll the woman ...see what they want for their families and their children ...the ability to talk rubbish on a talk show like on CNN or hard talk versus their neighbourhoods back ?

I am not a pollster expert but I think I understand common sense rather well.

[Kiwiken]

Putin has pulled out all his Air Force fighters deployed to Syria after September 30 of last year. Those craft are worn out and their weakly trained pilots exhausted. So is Putin's war budget literally spent.

Putin has had his military operating at maximum capacity and continually and its brought him to the end of his rope in Syria. Assad's army has disappointed Putin and his military high command due to its continued weak and poor performance. Putin had counted heavily on a rejuvenated Assad army on the ground to complement his air strikes, but neither the planned revival nor the dreamed up matchup have occurred.

President Obama is prepared to increase support for rebels, a factor which is further driving Putin and Assad to seek a negotiated settlement. However, US and partners in Syria know the longer they string out Putin and Assad the weaker they will be going into any discussions in Switzerland.

Here is an analysis of it from Chatham House which is the highly respected center of military intelligence and analysis in the UK dating back from before the Cold War that Russia lost....

The Russian withdrawal demonstrates that Moscow’s military intervention in Syria was largely about keeping the Assad regime in power and making the West look flat-footed. It was not about defeating Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as claimed. Putin declared the military pullback while ISIS still retains control of a large part of Syrian territory − the group only lost 14–20 per cent of its territory in 2015 because Russian air forces never considered them the major target. Instead, Russia concentrated its firepower against those opposition groupings that represented the greatest threat to the Assad regime.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/russia-s-withdrawal-syria-nothing-kind#sthash.eI2LjWHf.dpuf

Putin knows he cannot and must not commit to keeping Assad in power for as long as the Kremlin and KGB and GRU kept the Afghan government in power from 1979 to 92 when it finally got run out of Kabul. The Chekist Putin knows full well what the consequences were of Soviet Russia's long committment to a puppet regime in a disabled and barren nation.

My interest was aroused by the constant reference to Chekist. So I researched a little in what way are the supposed Chekist parasites any different from the old money in the USA, the snot gobbler Elite of the UK or Europe any different. You and I are but pawns in a bigger game. Or do you think buying into anti Russian propaganda makes you special. We are all Sheep herded by wolves. But some of us have thoughts that one day we can free ourselves from all of them. Do you have thoughts or are you as you appear. A Sheep?????

[LawrenceChee]

Morch

Have a look at this link...you can see the damages done to daily lives. I don't think the people there now are too worried as you mentioned they cannot think freely or express their views freely. Believe what they want if you poll them is life 5 years ago before the west encouraged the Arab Spring and have now have to deal with the extreme foothold that terrorists groups mange to establish after the main governments are all challenged.

Middle East is not the west and the Chinese and Russians were the only perm members ion the UN council that vetoed 3 times on foreign military intervention at that time. Wisely they understand that no one can really solve or understand middle eastern affairs than the MENA region themselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/26/syria-heritage-in-ruins-before-and-after-pictures

[Publicus]

Putin has pulled out all his Air Force fighters deployed to Syria after September 30 of last year. Those craft are worn out and their weakly trained pilots exhausted. So is Putin's war budget literally spent.

Putin has had his military operating at maximum capacity and continually and its brought him to the end of his rope in Syria. Assad's army has disappointed Putin and his military high command due to its continued weak and poor performance. Putin had counted heavily on a rejuvenated Assad army on the ground to complement his air strikes, but neither the planned revival nor the dreamed up matchup have occurred.

President Obama is prepared to increase support for rebels, a factor which is further driving Putin and Assad to seek a negotiated settlement. However, US and partners in Syria know the longer they string out Putin and Assad the weaker they will be going into any discussions in Switzerland.

Here is an analysis of it from Chatham House which is the highly respected center of military intelligence and analysis in the UK dating back from before the Cold War that Russia lost....

The Russian withdrawal demonstrates that Moscow’s military intervention in Syria was largely about keeping the Assad regime in power and making the West look flat-footed. It was not about defeating Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as claimed. Putin declared the military pullback while ISIS still retains control of a large part of Syrian territory − the group only lost 14–20 per cent of its territory in 2015 because Russian air forces never considered them the major target. Instead, Russia concentrated its firepower against those opposition groupings that represented the greatest threat to the Assad regime.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/russia-s-withdrawal-syria-nothing-kind#sthash.eI2LjWHf.dpuf

Putin knows he cannot and must not commit to keeping Assad in power for as long as the Kremlin and KGB and GRU kept the Afghan government in power from 1979 to 92 when it finally got run out of Kabul. The Chekist Putin knows full well what the consequences were of Soviet Russia's long committment to a puppet regime in a disabled and barren nation.

My interest was aroused by the constant reference to Chekist. So I researched a little in what way are the supposed Chekist parasites any different from the old money in the USA, the snot gobbler Elite of the UK or Europe any different. You and I are but pawns in a bigger game. Or do you think buying into anti Russian propaganda makes you special. We are all Sheep herded by wolves. But some of us have thoughts that one day we can free ourselves from all of them. Do you have thoughts or are you as you appear. A Sheep?????

You and I are but pawns in a bigger game.

Thanks for that.

My life is forever changed.

P.S. Perhaps try not to personalise the posts so much cause it can sound somewhat preachy.