Conditioning American withdrawal from Syria

[Peter1469]

I've known addicts who can't rationalize as well as you are right now

Did you type what you meant?

[Ransom]

Our real goal was destabilization. Iraq 2.0. So any withdrawal is a good withdrawal. Our intentions were not honorable so our withdrawal need not be either.

If you wouldn't mind, @donttread, I'm gonna ask for help in translation/mediation on this one. I don't speak Wingitese and therefore am going to ask a favor of our good friend Pete.

@Peter1469 I'll risk beginning this request with a compliment. You're often what I consider a Middle-ist, if you will, able to speak both languages. Donttread and I are often on opposite pages in the book, actually, we're often at times not even using the same book. You are gifted in speaking both Neoconese and Wingitese with equal enthusiasm and thus are requested to translate here if you wouldn't mind......cause....I don't know :wtf: donttread is trying to say with this statement, I'm somewhere lost in that translation, I don't even understand the language.

The Syrian Civil conflicts start what, in 2011...early 2012...ish? Separatist movements, what is in fact happening all over the ME, what's termed the Arab Spring is also erupting in Syria. Syria is a majority Sunni nation ruled by oppressive and Alawite Assad and a Shia minority. Sectarian violence erupts when democracy movements much like we'd seen in Egypt and Tunisia are ruthlessly put down by Assad who calls in his military. Into this fray Peter, into this cauldron, come serious players. Lebanese and Shia Hezbollah. Sunni al-Qaeda. Shiite Militias from Iraq. Kurdish militants. Syrian rebel forces, who are Sunni. Who have been living under oppressive Assad regimes long before Bashar come to power. And of course dozens of smaller and more heinous actors who are drawn to instability for their own interests, one of those individuals with visions of an Islamic State. The entire region now on fire. This forum speaks to it repeatedly, there is no leadership on the US on this matter, with all of these players involved, with the situation unstable as it is, what happens next? Please Pete, weigh in any time.

Iran sends it's military into the cauldron does it not? Thousands of Iranian troops are sent in an overt manner and within weeks are heavily engaged in the Syrian Civil War. Turkey then sends tanks and using military and facilitating and supporting Syrian rebel forces(to include that little junior varsity sideshow called ISIL) to fight they claim the Kurds who of course Turkey considers a terror organization. Who shows up next to offset NATO Member Turkey's involvement.....the T-90 tanks of the Russian Army to protect it's airfields and direct overt introduction into Syria. Out of this hornets nest of violence and murder comes ISIL. Who with gained strongholds within Syria begin to stomp Kurd after Shia Militia. They began to fan out into Iraq, make alliances with Sunni Arabs in Anbar, and then start to take vital Iraq government installations, Dams, banks, and entire cities defeating Syrian military forces, Iraq military forces, Sunni militias, al-Qaeda allied forces, Kurdish militias, Iranian backed Shia militias, and American hospital workers. The entire Middle East is a smoking cesspool and if I might balance my compliment above with a criticism....those who speak Wingitese, those who word out 'realism quotes', were explaining that this organization that was transforming into a transnational terror threat before our very eyes was a sideshow, was in fact a 'boogeyman' was donttread's term for them.

With 3/5 of Iraq occupied and terrorized. With the mini caliphate's hq firmly entrenched in the already destabilized Syria, with the Islamic State fully transformed into an international terrorist threat exceeding on many levels even that of al-Qaeda, in steps the United States...finally....with overt action. The engagements to date in a covert manner clearly not sufficient. The whack a mole tactics when able to take out leadership hadn't prevented the entire ME from devolving into utter chaos......

.......so we finally arrive into this smoking cauldron of chaos and instability with the "real goal of destabilization?" We finally arrive in an overt manner when there are no less than 4 major Terror Organizations destabilizing Syria. Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, and ISIL. There are no less than 5 nation's military involved in overt military action. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Turkey.......yet our late to the table endeavor, its' "real goal" is supposedly this destabilization that in fact already exists? Do I have that right? That's my translation and makes no sense to me. At all.

[Ransom]

Our real goal was destabilization. Iraq 2.0. So any withdrawal is a good withdrawal. Our intentions were not honorable so our withdrawal need not be either.

Sorry, duplicate post.

[Peter1469]

Dontread didn't make a very coherent statement. But then foreign policy is not his thing.

I am fine with the US going after ISIL in Syria. Supporting the Syrian rebels against Assad was a miscalculation.

If you wouldn't mind, @donttread, I'm gonna ask for help in translation/mediation on this one. I don't speak Wingitese and therefore am going to ask a favor of our good friend Pete.

@Peter1469 I'll risk beginning this request with a compliment. You're often what I consider a Middle-ist, if you will, able to speak both languages. Donttread and I are often on opposite pages in the book, actually, we're often at times not even using the same book. You are gifted in speaking both Neoconese and Wingitese with equal enthusiasm and thus are requested to translate here if you wouldn't mind......cause....I don't know :wtf: donttread is trying to say with this statement, I'm somewhere lost in that translation, I don't even understand the language.

The Syrian Civil conflicts start what, in 2011...early 2012...ish? Separatist movements, what is in fact happening all over the ME, what's termed the Arab Spring is also erupting in Syria. Syria is a majority Sunni nation ruled by oppressive and Alawite Assad and a Shia minority. Sectarian violence erupts when democracy movements much like we'd seen in Egypt and Tunisia are ruthlessly put down by Assad who calls in his military. Into this fray Peter, into this cauldron, come serious players. Lebanese and Shia Hezbollah. Sunni al-Qaeda. Shiite Militias from Iraq. Kurdish militants. Syrian rebel forces, who are Sunni. Who have been living under oppressive Assad regimes long before Bashar come to power. And of course dozens of smaller and more heinous actors who are drawn to instability for their own interests, one of those individuals with visions of an Islamic State. The entire region now on fire. This forum speaks to it repeatedly, there is no leadership on the US on this matter, with all of these players involved, with the situation unstable as it is, what happens next? Please Pete, weigh in any time.

Iran sends it's military into the cauldron does it not? Thousands of Iranian troops are sent in an overt manner and within weeks are heavily engaged in the Syrian Civil War. Turkey then sends tanks and using military and facilitating and supporting Syrian rebel forces(to include that little junior varsity sideshow called ISIL) to fight they claim the Kurds who of course Turkey considers a terror organization. Who shows up next to offset NATO Member Turkey's involvement.....the T-90 tanks of the Russian Army to protect it's airfields and direct overt introduction into Syria. Out of this hornets nest of violence and murder comes ISIL. Who with gained strongholds within Syria begin to stomp Kurd after Shia Militia. They began to fan out into Iraq, make alliances with Sunni Arabs in Anbar, and then start to take vital Iraq government installations, Dams, banks, and entire cities defeating Syrian military forces, Iraq military forces, Sunni militias, al-Qaeda allied forces, Kurdish militias, Iranian backed Shia militias, and American hospital workers. The entire Middle East is a smoking cesspool and if I might balance my compliment above with a criticism....those who speak Wingitese, those who word out 'realism quotes', were explaining that this organization that was transforming into a transnational terror threat before our very eyes was a sideshow, was in fact a 'boogeyman' was donttread's term for them.

With 3/5 of Iraq occupied and terrorized. With the mini caliphate's hq firmly entrenched in the already destabilized Syria, with the Islamic State fully transformed into an international terrorist threat exceeding on many levels even that of al-Qaeda, in steps the United States...finally....with overt action. The engagements to date in a covert manner clearly not sufficient. The whack a mole tactics when able to take out leadership hadn't prevented the entire ME from devolving into utter chaos......

.......so we finally arrive into this smoking cauldron of chaos and instability with the "real goal of destabilization?" We finally arrive in an overt manner when there are no less than 4 major Terror Organizations destabilizing Syria. Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, and ISIL. There are no less than 5 nation's military involved in overt military action. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Turkey.......yet our late to the table endeavor, its' "real goal" is supposedly this destabilization that in fact already exists? Do I have that right? That's my translation and makes no sense to me. At all.

[Tahuyaman]

Just in an alert large chemical attack on Syrian civilians. I think the attack is coming from another country not wanting us to leave the area.

What other nation would do something like this in an attempt to keep the US involved there? Certainly not Russia or any other Middle Eastern nation.


Either the rebels, or Syrian military under the direction of Assad did this. I suspect we will never know for sure.

[Tahuyaman]

Our real goal was destabilization. Iraq 2.0. So any withdrawal is a good withdrawal. Our intentions were not honorable so our withdrawal need not be either.

One can disagree with being involved there for a variety of reasons, but how were our intentions dishonorable?

[Tahuyaman]

Dontread didn't make a very coherent statement. But then foreign policy is not his thing.

I am fine with the US going after ISIL in Syria. Supporting the Syrian rebels against Assad was a miscalculation.

I would prefer going after ISIS there instead of here.

[Tahuyaman]

The article addresses Trump's statement concerning leaving. It is an interesting article considering its source.

The conclusion of the article sums it up in simple terms.......The Syrian civil war has been a source of instability and radicalization extending throughout the Middle East. The quicker it is brought to a conclusion, the better it will be for Syrians and their neighbors. The Syrian state has been closely aligned with Russia and Iran for decades. Six or seven years ago, when the civil war began, there might have been a chance to force a change, but that opportunity has passed. The best that can be hoped for at this late stage is that post-war Syria is no worse than pre-war Syria. That means coming to terms with the regime on the condition that all the foreign militias leave. Assad himself will want these foreign fighters to leave once he no longer needs them. The sooner that day comes, the better.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz5C6JPmOac

[Tahuyaman]

I've known addicts who can't rationalize as well as you are right now

I think you are off base on this one.

[donttread]

If you wouldn't mind, @donttread, I'm gonna ask for help in translation/mediation on this one. I don't speak Wingitese and therefore am going to ask a favor of our good friend Pete.

@Peter1469 I'll risk beginning this request with a compliment. You're often what I consider a Middle-ist, if you will, able to speak both languages. Donttread and I are often on opposite pages in the book, actually, we're often at times not even using the same book. You are gifted in speaking both Neoconese and Wingitese with equal enthusiasm and thus are requested to translate here if you wouldn't mind......cause....I don't know :wtf: donttread is trying to say with this statement, I'm somewhere lost in that translation, I don't even understand the language.

The Syrian Civil conflicts start what, in 2011...early 2012...ish? Separatist movements, what is in fact happening all over the ME, what's termed the Arab Spring is also erupting in Syria. Syria is a majority Sunni nation ruled by oppressive and Alawite Assad and a Shia minority. Sectarian violence erupts when democracy movements much like we'd seen in Egypt and Tunisia are ruthlessly put down by Assad who calls in his military. Into this fray Peter, into this cauldron, come serious players. Lebanese and Shia Hezbollah. Sunni al-Qaeda. Shiite Militias from Iraq. Kurdish militants. Syrian rebel forces, who are Sunni. Who have been living under oppressive Assad regimes long before Bashar come to power. And of course dozens of smaller and more heinous actors who are drawn to instability for their own interests, one of those individuals with visions of an Islamic State. The entire region now on fire. This forum speaks to it repeatedly, there is no leadership on the US on this matter, with all of these players involved, with the situation unstable as it is, what happens next? Please Pete, weigh in any time.

Iran sends it's military into the cauldron does it not? Thousands of Iranian troops are sent in an overt manner and within weeks are heavily engaged in the Syrian Civil War. Turkey then sends tanks and using military and facilitating and supporting Syrian rebel forces(to include that little junior varsity sideshow called ISIL) to fight they claim the Kurds who of course Turkey considers a terror organization. Who shows up next to offset NATO Member Turkey's involvement.....the T-90 tanks of the Russian Army to protect it's airfields and direct overt introduction into Syria. Out of this hornets nest of violence and murder comes ISIL. Who with gained strongholds within Syria begin to stomp Kurd after Shia Militia. They began to fan out into Iraq, make alliances with Sunni Arabs in Anbar, and then start to take vital Iraq government installations, Dams, banks, and entire cities defeating Syrian military forces, Iraq military forces, Sunni militias, al-Qaeda allied forces, Kurdish militias, Iranian backed Shia militias, and American hospital workers. The entire Middle East is a smoking cesspool and if I might balance my compliment above with a criticism....those who speak Wingitese, those who word out 'realism quotes', were explaining that this organization that was transforming into a transnational terror threat before our very eyes was a sideshow, was in fact a 'boogeyman' was donttread's term for them.

With 3/5 of Iraq occupied and terrorized. With the mini caliphate's hq firmly entrenched in the already destabilized Syria, with the Islamic State fully transformed into an international terrorist threat exceeding on many levels even that of al-Qaeda, in steps the United States...finally....with overt action. The engagements to date in a covert manner clearly not sufficient. The whack a mole tactics when able to take out leadership hadn't prevented the entire ME from devolving into utter chaos......

.......so we finally arrive into this smoking cauldron of chaos and instability with the "real goal of destabilization?" We finally arrive in an overt manner when there are no less than 4 major Terror Organizations destabilizing Syria. Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, and ISIL. There are no less than 5 nation's military involved in overt military action. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Turkey.......yet our late to the table endeavor, its' "real goal" is supposedly this destabilization that in fact already exists? Do I have that right? That's my translation and makes no sense to me. At all.

Removing Assad as we wanted to help do would of further destabilized things. Just like removing Saddam did in Iraq. Got it now?