Its also easy to write plenty of contradictory stuff. Which is why I initially asked you exactly what you thought was the best response. You then told me to go back and read your posts. You don’t seem to have liked the result.
This seems to be a combination of ill-informed and naive. So Obama started the Arab spring in Tunisia? He set that guy on fire heh? He started the arab spring in Iran, Syria and Libya? He obviously chose to get involved in Libya, and to a limited degree in Syria, but blaming the arab spring on Obama is idiotic. You seem to think he had an active part in Syria - Obama had virtually no role there at all. He armed a few small groups with weapons (who weren’t big players in the war) and bluffed with threats not to use chemical weapons. You seem to think he was involved heavily on the sidelines which is just false. He pretty much did your preferred system - no involvement. The only part of the Arab Spring the USA got involved in heavily was Libya.
On Iraq, you seem to have no idea of how tied in the USA was, how hard it was to quickly disengage, and how much Obama did removing US troops. Ironically, the absence of US troops was a big part in allowing ISIS to grab so much of the territory.
I agree with some of this. Bush senior is a bit more uncertain, Iraq did invade another country. I certainly think Bush 1 and Clinton’s response to Iraq afterwards was all wrong, and Bush II shouldn’t have gone in there. I’m more open on invading Afghanistan. But Iraq was just such an idiotic move.
You seem to be criticising Obama for arming a handful of rebels, or giving Libyan rebels a bit of air support. Saying it should be either nothing or a full invasion. And then saying that Trump lobbing a few missiles in is fine. This does seem pretty contradictory.
From the Iraqi WMD to the asada saga I don’t trust anything the MSM put out anymore.
All I hear is the same story repeated without reputable evidence, but classed as fact, sounds eerily similar.
Checking out independant Syrians via the twittersphere gives a different take on this story.
How have you lot not yet mentioned Russia’s continued support of the Syrian regime is the primary cause of the civil war still going after… 7 years? Short of invading yet another muslim country, I’m not really sure what the US can do until Russia drops support for Assad. But they are neck deep after all this time, that won’t be happening.
If so I think you need to realise there are more important things going on in the world than the plight of the people in Syria i.e. Essendon trying to win.
Was there not also an issue to do with the Kurds in Syria and Turkey’s problems with the Kurds? I thought the Kurds fighting Assad were declared a terrorist organisation by most Western countries.
There’s one Kurdish organisation that has been declared terrorists due to its actions fighting the Turks, but there’s a much bigger Kurdish quasi govermnent and military force that has received heavy backing from the west since the first Iraq war back in 91, cos they’re a relatively stable and sensible government growing out of chaos. The vibe is kinda like the understanding that used to exist between the IRA and ‘mainstream’ Irish politicians.
Problem of course was strange bedfellows. Both the Kurds with US backing and the Syrians were fighting Isis. Both Isis and non-Isis Syrian rebels with US backing were fighting Syria (although the latter have basically vanished now, to the extent that the ever really existed). But when the back of Isis had been broken the Kurds declared full independence (against the advice of basically everyone) and then got the crap kicked out of them by both Syria and turkey.
So to summarise, the Kurdish ‘terrorist’ organisation has been fighting as the close ally of the western-backed Kurdish peshmerga. The west has backed both the Kurds who were fighting allied to Assad against isis and the non-Isis Syrian rebels who were fighting against Assad. But the west is also closely allied to turkey (through NATO) that has been fighting both the terrorist Kurds and the western-backed Kurdish peshmerga. And after the Kurds declared independence the western-backed Turks were joined by Assad in fighting the combined forces of the terrorist Kurds and the western-backed Kurds.
On the Kurds, the issue is that this group of people are split across a number of nations. So there are Kurds living in Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Its all roughly one area, but those 4 countries all intersect in the same region and effectively split those peoples. I suggest googling “Map Kurdish areas” to see how big the area is, and how it overlaps all four countries.
Some Kurds in Turkey have tried to push for independence, and used terrorist activities to push their agenda. I can’t remember their name off the top of my head, but they’re the terrorists.
The USA has worked with the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, and generally found them far more supportive of the west than other groups. And far more reliable. It is with the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds that the USA has found the most support against ISIS. However, Assad and Turkey are very much against the Syrian Kurds claiming independence, since Assad doesn’t want to lose any territory, and Turkey doesn’t want either the precedent, or an independent Kurdish nation on its doorstep. So Turkey and Assad have both attacked the Syrian Kurds. Who are the USA’s best allies against ISIS.
