On August 29 2014 22:28 SkelA wrote: Its common knowledge that USA,Saudi Arabia, Turkey supported the opposition/terrorists/rebels in the early stages of the conflict in Syria but now they created a monster so huge they cant control.
Turkey and USA probably want to clear their involvement from ISIS but its clear that Saudi Arabia and Qatar(?) are the main supporters/funders of that organization.
When will the west learn to stop medling in middle eastern affairs? They are clearly not ready for democracy and I would rather have a dictator in power than madmen like ISIS. Both are bad but you gotta pick the lesser evil. In every country where USA interveneed the sitation became worse than before. Egypt,Lybia,Iraq,Syria,Afganistan are the clear examples.
As long as islam rules there cant be democracy in a country. I dont know a country where there is democracy like in the western world. They are all ruled by dictators or a autocratic government at the very least. Maybe they will improve when they will remove religion from state government.
Do you think rebels = terrorists? There are 3 major groups claim 3 different parts of the country. Also the sources you mention are just he/she said or claimed whatever.
Assads propaganda staff has been busy and sucessful, we have to give them that. They convinced a lot of people that anyone fighting the syrian goverment were hardline al-qaeda or ISIS.
And other than the by now largely irrelevant FSA, isn't that true? Between Al-Nusra and allied militias on the one side, and ISIS on the other, who else is fighting Assad?
That's very true. Even assuming that there was any grey area before, I think by this point, it's very black-and-white that this is a war against Islamic terrorism. I have no idea why people would deride and satirize an administration heavily engaged against the most despicable human beings in the world, and pass it off as "propaganda."
And I dont know why you want to pretend like large swaths of Syria isnt held by moderate rebels. What do you have to gain from it?
What is a moderate? But I find it more problematic that things get misconstrued every time it is presented as a black/white situation. ISIS has started getting challenged on their cohesion and Al-Nusra doesn't have that much power on their own. It is still not as black-and-white as long as the semi-dictators, semi-organized Kurds and small independent militias can keep ISIS and Al-Nusra occupied to an extend where they won't get rest to organize training camps and a dirty bomb program like the one Syria is using (chlorine gasses is what they use today after the rest of their toys got taken away from them!). I would also be worried about Yemen and Oman in this context since AQAP have held their ground for some time there. Btw. are nobody worried that the Kurds might find another war afterwards to keep Kurdistan united and independent from their evil occupiers in Turkey and to a larger degree Iran?
Nobody is worried? If you recall, the Kurds were discussed to hell some pages back. If you know about Kurdish society, it's pretty simplistic, aggressive, and deeply tribalistic in the countries in which they reside. They're also quite politically divisive as well. The "independence rhetoric" is quite literally the greatest thing Kurdish leaders wield, because it keeps the Kurdish people and more particularly the radicals on hating something else more than hating each other. A war for "united Kurdistan" would more likely be a war of "Kurds killing each other for power". Even if that isn't actually the case, the Turks and Iranians you mention will more than gladly crush them, with the Turks being graced by Uncle Sam's blessings.
US seems to play as many horses as they can in the region. As long as they don't hate the west as much as others in the area. That divisivity is diametrically in opposition to the united Iraq politicians are spewing, but I guess plausible deniability still is the official policy on these matters.
Of course we do, and we have for the past 60 years. Like it or not, we're the world's greatest imperial power. What else can you expect from us? We don't want anyone not directly under our boot to grow stronger. We're the biggest snakes on this earth and we will do what we can to ensure our domination. And actually, if all the polls, reports, articles, and lots of personal accounts I've come across over the years mean anything, the US is far more badly hated over there compared to them hating each other (except the mutual non-Israeli vs. Israeli animosity), and we certainly deserve that hatred.
And the Kurds aren't being graced by uncle Sam? As much as a civil war in Kurdistan is possible afterwards it will still depend on who has the guns after the current conflict and who they choose as their next target. Warriers will be warriers. I doubt Turkey would love it since EU is pretty bitchy about suppressing minorities and since Erdogan is creating a cult based on bridging Europe and the Middle East. So far Europe has already cooled relations significantly, so it is not really a good distraction for him when his campaign has Turkeys popular support comfortably in the bag.
The first part from you I quoted answers your own question and why the US has ever supported Kurds.
The US considers the PKK, one of the most important Kurdish political factions, to be a terrorist group, and we only back Kurdish terrorists or insurgents only when they oppose independent regimes like in Iraq or Iran (much like why the US supports Islamic terrorists when it suits their purposes), so no, it isn't like their our butt buddies by any means. As previously stated, you answered your own question. But do you realize that we like Turkey a lot more than we like the Kurds? Not to mention, Turkey is a NATO ally. The little legitimacy NATO still holds would be shattered if the USA were to prefer tribal insurgents against a NATO ally. It's very important that you understand that Turkey is a NATO ally. A lot of our political domination in your continent of Europe hinges on NATO. Only a person stupider than Bush (if that's possible) would ever support Kurdish insurgents over Turkey for this (and many other) reason.
Iran may like some distraction from their internal idiocy around internet technology and the endless cultural/religious/national exceptionalism vs. modernisation between the government and the ayatollahs. Rouhani does not seem too popular among the ruling sharia gods council. On the other hand, they have plenty of other "projects" in the Middle East to divert attention to if it comes to that, like the mistreatment in Palestine where their brothers in Hamas are getting trampled by US supported jewish invaders (Israel does not get recognized by Iran), Yemen where their brothers are pushing ultimatums or proposing glorious solutions for another separation of power than what the current government offers in a concession to AQAPs terrorists (a naming most foreigners can agree to btw.). Or in Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc.
Iran has always had many projects to destabilize and terrorize the Mideast since Khomeini seized power, whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas, Shiite terrorists in Iraq, etc. They've been terrorizing Iraq for 35 years and many other places since soon after. In a best case scenario, Saudi Arabia and Iran decimate each other. It would be the greatest achievement in the re-secularization of the Mideast, badly needed since the embargo and wars destroyed Iraq, once the stabilizing factor in the region against Islamic radicalism. Collapsing of the world's two greatest sponsors of Islamic terrorism would be a crippling blow to all Islamic terrorist organizations' influence, power, and operations.
On August 29 2014 22:28 SkelA wrote: Its common knowledge that USA,Saudi Arabia, Turkey supported the opposition/terrorists/rebels in the early stages of the conflict in Syria but now they created a monster so huge they cant control.
Turkey and USA probably want to clear their involvement from ISIS but its clear that Saudi Arabia and Qatar(?) are the main supporters/funders of that organization.
When will the west learn to stop medling in middle eastern affairs? They are clearly not ready for democracy and I would rather have a dictator in power than madmen like ISIS. Both are bad but you gotta pick the lesser evil. In every country where USA interveneed the sitation became worse than before. Egypt,Lybia,Iraq,Syria,Afganistan are the clear examples.
As long as islam rules there cant be democracy in a country. I dont know a country where there is democracy like in the western world. They are all ruled by dictators or a autocratic government at the very least. Maybe they will improve when they will remove religion from state government.
Do you think rebels = terrorists? There are 3 major groups claim 3 different parts of the country. Also the sources you mention are just he/she said or claimed whatever.
Assads propaganda staff has been busy and sucessful, we have to give them that. They convinced a lot of people that anyone fighting the syrian goverment were hardline al-qaeda or ISIS.
And other than the by now largely irrelevant FSA, isn't that true? Between Al-Nusra and allied militias on the one side, and ISIS on the other, who else is fighting Assad?
That's very true. Even assuming that there was any grey area before, I think by this point, it's very black-and-white that this is a war against Islamic terrorism. I have no idea why people would deride and satirize an administration heavily engaged against the most despicable human beings in the world, and pass it off as "propaganda."
And I dont know why you want to pretend like large swaths of Syria isnt held by moderate rebels. What do you have to gain from it?
What is a moderate? But I find it more problematic that things get misconstrued every time it is presented as a black/white situation. ISIS has started getting challenged on their cohesion and Al-Nusra doesn't have that much power on their own. It is still not as black-and-white as long as the semi-dictators, semi-organized Kurds and small independent militias can keep ISIS and Al-Nusra occupied to an extend where they won't get rest to organize training camps and a dirty bomb program like the one Syria is using (chlorine gasses is what they use today after the rest of their toys got taken away from them!). I would also be worried about Yemen and Oman in this context since AQAP have held their ground for some time there. Btw. are nobody worried that the Kurds might find another war afterwards to keep Kurdistan united and independent from their evil occupiers in Turkey and to a larger degree Iran?
Nobody is worried? If you recall, the Kurds were discussed to hell some pages back. If you know about Kurdish society, it's pretty simplistic, aggressive, and deeply tribalistic in the countries in which they reside. They're also quite politically divisive as well. The "independence rhetoric" is quite literally the greatest thing Kurdish leaders wield, because it keeps the Kurdish people and more particularly the radicals on hating something else more than hating each other. A war for "united Kurdistan" would more likely be a war of "Kurds killing each other for power". Even if that isn't actually the case, the Turks and Iranians you mention will more than gladly crush them, with the Turks being graced by Uncle Sam's blessings.
US seems to play as many horses as they can in the region. As long as they don't hate the west as much as others in the area. That divisivity is diametrically in opposition to the united Iraq politicians are spewing, but I guess plausible deniability still is the official policy on these matters.
Of course we do, and we have for the past 60 years. Like it or not, we're the world's greatest imperial power. What else can you expect from us? We don't want anyone not directly under our boot to grow stronger. We're the biggest snakes on this earth and we will do what we can to ensure our domination. And actually, if all the polls, reports, articles, and lots of personal accounts I've come across over the years mean anything, the US is far more badly hated over there compared to them hating each other (except the mutual non-Israeli vs. Israeli animosity), and we certainly deserve that hatred.
And the Kurds aren't being graced by uncle Sam? As much as a civil war in Kurdistan is possible afterwards it will still depend on who has the guns after the current conflict and who they choose as their next target. Warriers will be warriers. I doubt Turkey would love it since EU is pretty bitchy about suppressing minorities and since Erdogan is creating a cult based on bridging Europe and the Middle East. So far Europe has already cooled relations significantly, so it is not really a good distraction for him when his campaign has Turkeys popular support comfortably in the bag.
The first part from you I quoted answers your own question and why the US has ever supported Kurds.
The US considers the PKK, one of the most important Kurdish political factions, to be a terrorist group, and we only back Kurdish terrorists or insurgents only when they oppose independent regimes like in Iraq or Iran (much like why the US supports Islamic terrorists when it suits their purposes), so no, it isn't like their our butt buddies by any means. As previously stated, you answered your own question. But do you realize that we like Turkey a lot more than we like the Kurds? Not to mention, Turkey is a NATO ally. The little legitimacy NATO still holds would be shattered if the USA were to prefer tribal insurgents against a NATO ally. It's very important that you understand that Turkey is a NATO ally. A lot of our political domination in your continent of Europe hinges on NATO. Only a person stupider than Bush (if that's possible) would ever support Kurdish insurgents over Turkey for this (and many other) reason.
Iran may like some distraction from their internal idiocy around internet technology and the endless cultural/religious/national exceptionalism vs. modernisation between the government and the ayatollahs. Rouhani does not seem too popular among the ruling sharia gods council. On the other hand, they have plenty of other "projects" in the Middle East to divert attention to if it comes to that, like the mistreatment in Palestine where their brothers in Hamas are getting trampled by US supported jewish invaders (Israel does not get recognized by Iran), Yemen where their brothers are pushing ultimatums or proposing glorious solutions for another separation of power than what the current government offers in a concession to AQAPs terrorists (a naming most foreigners can agree to btw.). Or in Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc.
Iran has always had many projects to destabilize and terrorize the Mideast since Khomeini seized power, whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas, Shiite terrorists in Iraq, etc. They've been terrorizing Iraq for 35 years and many other places since soon after. In a best case scenario, Saudi Arabia and Iran decimate each other. It would be the greatest achievement in the re-secularization of the Mideast, badly needed since the embargo and wars destroyed Iraq, once the stabilizing factor in the region against Islamic radicalism. Collapsing of the world's two greatest sponsors of Islamic terrorism would be a crippling blow to all Islamic terrorist organizations' influence, power, and operations.
And what about the people ? Should they just all be decimated as well? It seems like western powers have many projects to destabilize the middle east and other countries as well...should they just be annihilated as well? As they seem to be the greatest sponsors of terrorism and of nations that support terrorism.
Do you think rebels = terrorists? There are 3 major groups claim 3 different parts of the country. Also the sources you mention are just he/she said or claimed whatever.
Assads propaganda staff has been busy and sucessful, we have to give them that. They convinced a lot of people that anyone fighting the syrian goverment were hardline al-qaeda or ISIS.
And other than the by now largely irrelevant FSA, isn't that true? Between Al-Nusra and allied militias on the one side, and ISIS on the other, who else is fighting Assad?
That's very true. Even assuming that there was any grey area before, I think by this point, it's very black-and-white that this is a war against Islamic terrorism. I have no idea why people would deride and satirize an administration heavily engaged against the most despicable human beings in the world, and pass it off as "propaganda."
And I dont know why you want to pretend like large swaths of Syria isnt held by moderate rebels. What do you have to gain from it?
What is a moderate? But I find it more problematic that things get misconstrued every time it is presented as a black/white situation. ISIS has started getting challenged on their cohesion and Al-Nusra doesn't have that much power on their own. It is still not as black-and-white as long as the semi-dictators, semi-organized Kurds and small independent militias can keep ISIS and Al-Nusra occupied to an extend where they won't get rest to organize training camps and a dirty bomb program like the one Syria is using (chlorine gasses is what they use today after the rest of their toys got taken away from them!). I would also be worried about Yemen and Oman in this context since AQAP have held their ground for some time there. Btw. are nobody worried that the Kurds might find another war afterwards to keep Kurdistan united and independent from their evil occupiers in Turkey and to a larger degree Iran?
Nobody is worried? If you recall, the Kurds were discussed to hell some pages back. If you know about Kurdish society, it's pretty simplistic, aggressive, and deeply tribalistic in the countries in which they reside. They're also quite politically divisive as well. The "independence rhetoric" is quite literally the greatest thing Kurdish leaders wield, because it keeps the Kurdish people and more particularly the radicals on hating something else more than hating each other. A war for "united Kurdistan" would more likely be a war of "Kurds killing each other for power". Even if that isn't actually the case, the Turks and Iranians you mention will more than gladly crush them, with the Turks being graced by Uncle Sam's blessings.
US seems to play as many horses as they can in the region. As long as they don't hate the west as much as others in the area. That divisivity is diametrically in opposition to the united Iraq politicians are spewing, but I guess plausible deniability still is the official policy on these matters.
Of course we do, and we have for the past 60 years. Like it or not, we're the world's greatest imperial power. What else can you expect from us? We don't want anyone not directly under our boot to grow stronger. We're the biggest snakes on this earth and we will do what we can to ensure our domination. And actually, if all the polls, reports, articles, and lots of personal accounts I've come across over the years mean anything, the US is far more badly hated over there compared to them hating each other (except the mutual non-Israeli vs. Israeli animosity), and we certainly deserve that hatred.
And the Kurds aren't being graced by uncle Sam? As much as a civil war in Kurdistan is possible afterwards it will still depend on who has the guns after the current conflict and who they choose as their next target. Warriers will be warriers. I doubt Turkey would love it since EU is pretty bitchy about suppressing minorities and since Erdogan is creating a cult based on bridging Europe and the Middle East. So far Europe has already cooled relations significantly, so it is not really a good distraction for him when his campaign has Turkeys popular support comfortably in the bag.
The first part from you I quoted answers your own question and why the US has ever supported Kurds.
The US considers the PKK, one of the most important Kurdish political factions, to be a terrorist group, and we only back Kurdish terrorists or insurgents only when they oppose independent regimes like in Iraq or Iran (much like why the US supports Islamic terrorists when it suits their purposes), so no, it isn't like their our butt buddies by any means. As previously stated, you answered your own question. But do you realize that we like Turkey a lot more than we like the Kurds? Not to mention, Turkey is a NATO ally. The little legitimacy NATO still holds would be shattered if the USA were to prefer tribal insurgents against a NATO ally. It's very important that you understand that Turkey is a NATO ally. A lot of our political domination in your continent of Europe hinges on NATO. Only a person stupider than Bush (if that's possible) would ever support Kurdish insurgents over Turkey for this (and many other) reason.
Iran may like some distraction from their internal idiocy around internet technology and the endless cultural/religious/national exceptionalism vs. modernisation between the government and the ayatollahs. Rouhani does not seem too popular among the ruling sharia gods council. On the other hand, they have plenty of other "projects" in the Middle East to divert attention to if it comes to that, like the mistreatment in Palestine where their brothers in Hamas are getting trampled by US supported jewish invaders (Israel does not get recognized by Iran), Yemen where their brothers are pushing ultimatums or proposing glorious solutions for another separation of power than what the current government offers in a concession to AQAPs terrorists (a naming most foreigners can agree to btw.). Or in Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc.
Iran has always had many projects to destabilize and terrorize the Mideast since Khomeini seized power, whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas, Shiite terrorists in Iraq, etc. They've been terrorizing Iraq for 35 years and many other places since soon after. In a best case scenario, Saudi Arabia and Iran decimate each other. It would be the greatest achievement in the re-secularization of the Mideast, badly needed since the embargo and wars destroyed Iraq, once the stabilizing factor in the region against Islamic radicalism. Collapsing of the world's two greatest sponsors of Islamic terrorism would be a crippling blow to all Islamic terrorist organizations' influence, power, and operations.
And what about the people ? Should they just all be decimated as well? It seems like western powers have many projects to destabilize the middle east and other countries as well...should they just be annihilated as well? As they seem to be the greatest sponsors of terrorism and of nations that support terrorism.
Please don't pick at strawmen. No one is talking about killing off civilians. The entire point was the positive political repercussions of such an event. And I think anyone with half a mind knows that the US has been the biggest destabilizing force in the Mideast since the end of WW2. Yes you're right, the US supports Islamic terrorism and backers of Islamic terrorism when it suits their interests. We are a gluttonous imperialist power. It's to be expected. But we don't inherently on an ideological and consistent basis support Islamic terrorism like nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iran do. What I do agree with is there certainly needs to be some sort of leash on the US.
You ask for them to "decimate" each other because they "destabilize" and "terrorize" the mideast. And you announce it as "the greatest achievement in the re-secularization of the Mideast". He didn't strawman on you my friend.
NEWPORT Wales (Reuters) - Britain said on Thursday it was considering arming Kurdish forces but Prime Minister David Cameron signaled he would not sanction U.K. airstrikes against Islamic State militants before a new Iraqi government is in place.
Britain has so far carried out aid drops and surveillance and transported military supplies to Kurdish regional forces allied with the Baghdad central government.
Other European countries, including Germany, France and Italy have already agreed to send Kurdish forces a quantity of light weapons to use against the militants who have swept into northern Iraq.
"We're prepared to do more and we're considering actively whether to give them arms ourselves and whether we can do more directly to train Kurdish militia - we're already playing a role there but we can do more," Cameron told ITV.
Cameron, hosting a two-day NATO summit in Wales, said he was not ruling anything out in the effort to "squeeze" the Islamic State (IS) "out of existence", but signaled Britain would not join US airstrikes before a new Iraqi government is in place.
Iraq's Prime Minister-designate Haider al-Abadi said last week he was optimistic about forming a new government soon. Abadi is tasked with forming a power-sharing administration that can ease tensions and counter IS militants who pose the biggest security threat to Iraq since a U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.
"We musn't see this as something where you have a western intervention over the heads of neighboring states," Cameron told the BBC.
BEIRUT (Reuters) - In the cities and towns across the desert plains of northeast Syria, the ultra-hardline al Qaeda offshoot Islamic State has insinuated itself into nearly every aspect of daily life.
The group famous for its beheadings, crucifixions and mass executions provides electricity and water, pays salaries, controls traffic, and runs nearly everything from bakeries and banks to schools, courts and mosques.
While its merciless battlefield tactics and its imposition of its austere vision of Islamic law have won the group headlines, residents say much of its power lies in its efficient and often deeply pragmatic ability to govern.
Syria's eastern province of Raqqa provides the best illustration of their methods. Members hold up the province as an example of life under the Islamic "caliphate" they hope will one day stretch from China to Europe.
In the provincial capital, a dust-blown city that was home to about a quarter of a million people before Syria's three-year-old war began, the group leaves almost no institution or public service outside of its control.
"Let us be honest, they are doing massive institutional work. It is impressive," one activist from Raqqa who now lives in a border town in Turkey told Reuters.
In interviews conducted remotely, residents, Islamic State fighters and even activists opposed to the group described how it had built up a structure similar to a modern government in less than a year under its chief, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Reuters journalists are unable to visit the area for security reasons.
In times of war, order is often valued pretty high. This will however be much more problematic for the civilians if the war ever finishes, lets say with ISIS still in power. Im sure the local clan leaders are not very happy about ISIS having so much power over their life.
U.S. airstrikes in Iraq have enabled allied ground forces to roll back the Islamic State insurgency on several key fronts, but the clock is almost up on stopgap unilateral action. To “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State, President Barack Obama says, the U.S. must forge an international “coalition of the willing” to confront the extremists who have seized control of much of Syria and Iraq and declared war on every state in the Middle East.
“Our message to the entire region is this should be a wake-up call to Sunni, to Shia, to everybody that a group like [Islamic State] is beyond the pale,” Obama said last month. “We’ve got to all join together – even if we have differences on a range of political issues – to make sure that they’re rooted out.”
That argument resonates in capitals across the divided region. Iran is horrified by the group’s virulent anti-Shia ideology, and their wanton slaughter of Iraqi Shias. And Tehran's arch-enemies in Riyadh fear the Islamic State as an ideological challenge to the legitimacy of Saudi claims to lead the Islamic world — similar to their fear of the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq and Syria’s neighbors — Turkey, Jordan, and Iraqi Kurdish regions – fear spillover and even incursion.
While Washington appears to have already secured French and British support, other Western allies may be hesitant to sign onto an initiative that bears similarity in name and purpose to the 2003 “coalition of the willing” that backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which is blamed by some for the current turmoil. With NATO distracted by the crisis in Ukraine, the heaviest burden of the fight against IS would have to be borne by the Middle Eastern countries most immediately in its sights, the administration has argued.
Despite their common hostility to IS, however, those powers remain at odds with one another, their strategic rivalry reinforcing local conflicts from Libya to Afghanistan. Obama is now asking Saudi Arabia and Iran, the region’s Sunni and Shia rivals, to align on a regional initiative when they've taken opposite sides in most regional conflicts over the past decade and more. He’s asking Turkey to join a fight on the same side as radical Kurdish militias with which Ankara has been at war for decades. And neither the Saudis, Turks or Qataris – or some Western powers – are comfortable with a military campaign whose effect may be to inadvertently prolong the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
On August 29 2014 22:28 SkelA wrote: Its common knowledge that USA,Saudi Arabia, Turkey supported the opposition/terrorists/rebels in the early stages of the conflict in Syria but now they created a monster so huge they cant control.
Turkey and USA probably want to clear their involvement from ISIS but its clear that Saudi Arabia and Qatar(?) are the main supporters/funders of that organization.
When will the west learn to stop medling in middle eastern affairs? They are clearly not ready for democracy and I would rather have a dictator in power than madmen like ISIS. Both are bad but you gotta pick the lesser evil. In every country where USA interveneed the sitation became worse than before. Egypt,Lybia,Iraq,Syria,Afganistan are the clear examples.
As long as islam rules there cant be democracy in a country. I dont know a country where there is democracy like in the western world. They are all ruled by dictators or a autocratic government at the very least. Maybe they will improve when they will remove religion from state government.
Do you think rebels = terrorists? There are 3 major groups claim 3 different parts of the country. Also the sources you mention are just he/she said or claimed whatever.
Assads propaganda staff has been busy and sucessful, we have to give them that. They convinced a lot of people that anyone fighting the syrian goverment were hardline al-qaeda or ISIS.
And other than the by now largely irrelevant FSA, isn't that true? Between Al-Nusra and allied militias on the one side, and ISIS on the other, who else is fighting Assad?
That's very true. Even assuming that there was any grey area before, I think by this point, it's very black-and-white that this is a war against Islamic terrorism. I have no idea why people would deride and satirize an administration heavily engaged against the most despicable human beings in the world, and pass it off as "propaganda."
And I dont know why you want to pretend like large swaths of Syria isnt held by moderate rebels. What do you have to gain from it?
What is a moderate? But I find it more problematic that things get misconstrued every time it is presented as a black/white situation. ISIS has started getting challenged on their cohesion and Al-Nusra doesn't have that much power on their own. It is still not as black-and-white as long as the semi-dictators, semi-organized Kurds and small independent militias can keep ISIS and Al-Nusra occupied to an extend where they won't get rest to organize training camps and a dirty bomb program like the one Syria is using (chlorine gasses is what they use today after the rest of their toys got taken away from them!). I would also be worried about Yemen and Oman in this context since AQAP have held their ground for some time there. Btw. are nobody worried that the Kurds might find another war afterwards to keep Kurdistan united and independent from their evil occupiers in Turkey and to a larger degree Iran?
Nobody is worried? If you recall, the Kurds were discussed to hell some pages back. If you know about Kurdish society, it's pretty simplistic, aggressive, and deeply tribalistic in the countries in which they reside. They're also quite politically divisive as well. The "independence rhetoric" is quite literally the greatest thing Kurdish leaders wield, because it keeps the Kurdish people and more particularly the radicals on hating something else more than hating each other. A war for "united Kurdistan" would more likely be a war of "Kurds killing each other for power". Even if that isn't actually the case, the Turks and Iranians you mention will more than gladly crush them, with the Turks being graced by Uncle Sam's blessings.
US seems to play as many horses as they can in the region. As long as they don't hate the west as much as others in the area. That divisivity is diametrically in opposition to the united Iraq politicians are spewing, but I guess plausible deniability still is the official policy on these matters.
Of course we do, and we have for the past 60 years. Like it or not, we're the world's greatest imperial power. What else can you expect from us? We don't want anyone not directly under our boot to grow stronger. We're the biggest snakes on this earth and we will do what we can to ensure our domination. And actually, if all the polls, reports, articles, and lots of personal accounts I've come across over the years mean anything, the US is far more badly hated over there compared to them hating each other (except the mutual non-Israeli vs. Israeli animosity), and we certainly deserve that hatred.
Yeah, yeah american exceptionalism and I completely believe you when you say US is more hated than the others on the secterian divide. I tend to see the hate for Israel and USA as often overlapping, but that is not to say USA isn't hated for other support efforts. What I contest is the divide between political speeches and what seems to be reality. That is a Grand Canion filled with hypocricy.
And the Kurds aren't being graced by uncle Sam? As much as a civil war in Kurdistan is possible afterwards it will still depend on who has the guns after the current conflict and who they choose as their next target. Warriers will be warriers. I doubt Turkey would love it since EU is pretty bitchy about suppressing minorities and since Erdogan is creating a cult based on bridging Europe and the Middle East. So far Europe has already cooled relations significantly, so it is not really a good distraction for him when his campaign has Turkeys popular support comfortably in the bag.
The first part from you I quoted answers your own question and why the US has ever supported Kurds.
The US considers the PKK, one of the most important Kurdish political factions, to be a terrorist group, and we only back Kurdish terrorists or insurgents only when they oppose independent regimes like in Iraq or Iran (much like why the US supports Islamic terrorists when it suits their purposes), so no, it isn't like their our butt buddies by any means. As previously stated, you answered your own question. But do you realize that we like Turkey a lot more than we like the Kurds? Not to mention, Turkey is a NATO ally. The little legitimacy NATO still holds would be shattered if the USA were to prefer tribal insurgents against a NATO ally. It's very important that you understand that Turkey is a NATO ally. A lot of our political domination in your continent of Europe hinges on NATO. Only a person stupider than Bush (if that's possible) would ever support Kurdish insurgents over Turkey for this (and many other) reason.
I provided a schism and didn't follow through in my leaning. Not as inconsistent as you make it sound like.
Not doubting US would go 100 % on Turkeys side, but it is not a good thing to first go support the Kurds and then support Turkey against them. That is not good for US reputation. In the Middle East it can hardly get worse, so no problem there, but in the rest of the world, it doesn't look good (since Europe supports the same thing this is not exactly a US-only problem!).
Iran may like some distraction from their internal idiocy around internet technology and the endless cultural/religious/national exceptionalism vs. modernisation between the government and the ayatollahs. Rouhani does not seem too popular among the ruling sharia gods council. On the other hand, they have plenty of other "projects" in the Middle East to divert attention to if it comes to that, like the mistreatment in Palestine where their brothers in Hamas are getting trampled by US supported jewish invaders (Israel does not get recognized by Iran), Yemen where their brothers are pushing ultimatums or proposing glorious solutions for another separation of power than what the current government offers in a concession to AQAPs terrorists (a naming most foreigners can agree to btw.). Or in Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc.
Iran has always had many projects to destabilize and terrorize the Mideast since Khomeini seized power, whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas, Shiite terrorists in Iraq, etc. They've been terrorizing Iraq for 35 years and many other places since soon after. In a best case scenario, Saudi Arabia and Iran decimate each other. It would be the greatest achievement in the re-secularization of the Mideast, badly needed since the embargo and wars destroyed Iraq, once the stabilizing factor in the region against Islamic radicalism. Collapsing of the world's two greatest sponsors of Islamic terrorism would be a crippling blow to all Islamic terrorist organizations' influence, power, and operations.
Well, violence usually breeds violence. If you want to secularize the middle east, peace and prosperity may be better incentives for the people. If you look at Iran in the beginning of this millenia, the only thing lacking was the overthrowing of the 64 sad old men oligarchy. Saudi Arabia is more entrenched and supported in their bad habits. Solving the problem would implicate very specifically the king and the ayatollahs, at least as a first step. But since both are incredibly paranoid and fancy a large loyal military, it doesn't seem likely that they will get removed. I think Iran has a population ready to mostly embrace real democracy. I don't think Saudi Arabias population is there yet.
On September 06 2014 05:28 xDaunt wrote: Watching that Vice News video, it's fairly apparent that ending the Islamic State is going to require killing a lot of people over there.
since its what they want, its a win win for everyone except communist traitors in the West.
On September 06 2014 05:28 xDaunt wrote: Watching that Vice News video, it's fairly apparent that ending the Islamic State is going to require killing a lot of people over there.
since its what they want, its a win win for everyone except communist traitors in the West.
Wait what? Communist traitors in the west? What does that even means, and what do the communists have anything to do with ISIS?...
On September 05 2014 05:51 Roggay wrote: In times of war, order is often valued pretty high. This will however be much more problematic for the civilians if the war ever finishes, lets say with ISIS still in power. Im sure the local clan leaders are not very happy about ISIS having so much power over their life.
Looking at the unofficial Islamic state index, they seem to generally fail. At least Stalin did not outlaw cigarettes, vodka, or any other simple pleasures in life which most certainly had an effect to why Malians hated the Islamists there.
On September 06 2014 05:28 xDaunt wrote: Watching that Vice News video, it's fairly apparent that ending the Islamic State is going to require killing a lot of people over there.
since its what they want, its a win win for everyone except communist traitors in the West.
absurd! it's a lose lose for everyone, except for fascist pig-dogs.
Dunno if im supposed to feel pity or hate all those ppl down there. Everyone would be terrified from an organization like ISIS but they seem to like what has their part of the world became. Uneducated ppl are young kids are so easy to get brainwashed.
So ISIS just wants to turn the whole Middle east and rest of the world into Saudi Arabia ? Everyone that is Sunni muslim is feeling great but the rest of the world (shia,christian,jew,atheist) is considered even less than animal. They dont even feel remorse killing an infidel from their point of view because they are not humans in the first place. How is this even allowed to spread in the first place !?
As long as Saudi Arabia exists in the current form of sharia country that hates everything that is not sunni muslim this will never go away and could even spread to Europe in a couple of decades if its left on its own.
EPT
