Jump to content
BeAChooser

Trump Is Right on Syria

Recommended Posts

https://spectator.org/trump-is-right-on-syria/

 

Quote

 

Trump Is Right on Syria


He’s consistent in living up to his promises. Is that what troubles people?


by Daniel J. Flynn


Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of between 50 and 100 troops from northern Syria and plans for the removal of 2,000 or so American military personnel from the country. Washington asks why the president pulls our forces. Many Americans outside the Beltway wonder why we put them there in the first place.


Initially, Barack Obama announced that Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad must go. Then, when ISIS looked to fill the void left by the dictator’s possible ouster, the rationale changed to defeating the Islamic radicals who sought to defeat Assad.


The reasons for staying appear equally convoluted. Cal Thomas, for instance, worries, “Coming home is no guarantee the terrorists won’t come after us here. In fact, Iran has bragged of having their agents inside the U.S., awaiting instructions to inflict more death and destruction.” Others emphasize the danger of ISIS, rising from their ashes like a phoenix, resurging. Perhaps one of these scenarios occur but the Shiite/Sunni either/or seems a choice between horrible and terrible. A third outcome involves Assad further strengthening his hold on the country. None of the three appear at all appealing. What, exactly, is the realistic endgame, and does the presence of several dozen members of the U.S. military in northern Syria do anything to bring about this desired outcome?


“The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East,” Trump reasons. “Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side.”


Trump campaigned, loudly, on withdrawing the American military from the various campaigns in the Islamic world that cost the U.S. greatly in terms of both lives and lucre. Why, then, did so many offer a shocked, shocked response this week? The bipartisan consensus foolishly assumed that, Trump’s promises be damned, the live-action Risk game would continue unabated.


The president further explained on Twitter why it must not: “GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. There were NONE! Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers & military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE! THE USA IS GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!”


Many conservatives who doubt the abilities of the U.S. government to deliver the mail fantastically trust it to transform religious fanatics and secular bad guys into New England-style town-meeting members. Liberals, though ostensibly suspicious of the use of the military, cling to a Wilsonianism that transforms soldiers into not even policemen but social workers. The lack of a realistic objective from the former group and a clear objective from the latter ensures no desirable outcome.


Our disastrous history in the region, from Lebanon to Iraq and beyond, demonstrates how little we understand it. We project our own values on various combatants only for events to highlight the folly of our previous beliefs. Prior to the Iraq War, American conservatives imagined that Iraqis would greet our invading soldiers as liberators and the country that emerged would serve as a model of democracy that would spread throughout the region. Before and even after the Islamic Revolution in neighboring Iran, many American liberals imagined the Ayatollah Khomeini as a bearded, turbaned version of themselves. Eqbal Ahmad, for instance, asked in the April 1979 issue of Mother Jones, “What kind of state might result if Khomeini or his followers take power? As someone who has talked with him at length, I believe that, when Khomeini speaks of an Islamic state for Iran, it is a Shi’ite scholar’s way of saying that he wants a good state in Iran. His concept of a good state includes democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutionalist government.”


The distortion of the ideological lens seems secondary to the distortion of the Western lens. The late Samuel Huntington laid this out clearly in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order several decades ago. “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism,” he wrote. “It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed by the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the U.S. Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredients that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.”


Yet, like Charlie Brown attempting to kick that football, the United States keeps trying, trying again with the same results. Strangely, Donald Trump earns designation as the fool for departing from this foolish course.

 

 

What part of that reasoning would you leftists and RINOs like to challenge?  Hmmmmm?  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US did not invade Syria to depose Assad. Their purpose was to drive Isis out of territory held by this self-proclaimed caliphate.

Syria has been in the Soviet and then the Russian, sphere of influence since the early 1950's. Syria is Israel's most serious ally since the Jimmy Carter convinced the rulers of Egypt and Jordan to accept huge amounts of aid from the US in exchange for an agreement not to attack Israel. Assad mostly limited himself to meddling in Lebanese politics. Lebanon was once part of the same Ottoman province as Syria. The French separated Lebanon, which then had a Christian majority, from the rest of Syria, which was and still is a mishmash of  many sects of Islam that detest one another,and also some Druzes, who may or may not be some form of Muslims, only anthropologists have all the details: it is a religion so secret that most of its members cannot tell you the basic tenets, which are conveniently secret.

 

Assad is a member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam, which is important because they sucked up to the French  who got the mandate to rule Syria after the Ottoman Empire collapsed around the end of WWI. Alawites are abouit 17% of the population of Syria, and that are as a group, more urban, better educated,and more prosperous than the Sunni majority. Alawites also drink alcohol and believe in reincarnation, unlike most Muslims.

 

The usual tradition in Syria was that some area would rise in rebellion against Assad's father,  who would then repress it severely, even leveling it. But the US invasion of Iraq made weapons very available to everyone.

 

Sharecropping peasants were impoverished by a severe drought, with temperatures as high as 135º F, and were unable to pay the rent as usual, and were facing eviction: Assad promised to do something and did nothing useful, and an armed rebellion began. And then most of the dissatisfied minorities rose up against Assad and one another. There is no dominant ethnic/religious group in Syria.

 

Politically, the Baathist Party, which is a wacky pro-Pan Arab  Unity version of  Socialism. rules Syria,In reality, Assad is a dictator, and does whatever Assad telsit to om

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the U.S. Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredients that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.”

lol our involvement in the ME has nothing to do with oil lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

The US did not invade Syria to depose Assad. Their purpose was to drive Isis out of territory held by this self-proclaimed caliphate.

Syria has been in the Soviet and then

What kind of revisionist crap is that? Obama and the neocons entered Syria 8 years ago to support "non radical" anti Assad militants. We armed them, we trained them, sheltered them under our no fly zones. They joined with Iraqi separatists to form ISIS. We spent the last couple years fixing what Obama broke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Civil war

 

Many warring factions

 

PKK/YPG Kurds are Communists that NOBODY LIKES

 

Thanks Bammy for getting us STUCK in another Middle East FIASCO

 

Time to go home!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

What kind of revisionist crap is that? Obama and the neocons entered Syria 8 years ago to support "non radical" anti Assad militants. We armed them, we trained them, sheltered them under our no fly zones. They joined with Iraqi separatists to form ISIS. We spent the last couple years fixing what Obama broke. 

 

100% CORRECT

 

BRAVO

 

Image result for bravo gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, slideman said:

lol our involvement in the ME has nothing to do with oil lol

 

Its always oil.....so time to leave Syria , agreed :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

The US did not invade Syria to depose Assad. Their purpose was to drive Isis out of territory held by this self-proclaimed caliphate.

Syria has been in the Soviet and then the Russian, sphere of influence since the early 1950's. Syria is Israel's most serious ally since the Jimmy Carter convinced the rulers of Egypt and Jordan to accept huge amounts of aid from the US in exchange for an agreement not to attack Israel. Assad mostly limited himself to meddling in Lebanese politics. Lebanon was once part of the same Ottoman province as Syria. The French separated Lebanon, which then had a Christian majority, from the rest of Syria, which was and still is a mishmash of  many sects of Islam that detest one another,and also some Druzes, who may or may not be some form of Muslims, only anthropologists have all the details: it is a religion so secret that most of its members cannot tell you the basic tenets, which are conveniently secret.

 

Assad is a member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam, which is important because they sucked up to the French  who got the mandate to rule Syria after the Ottoman Empire collapsed around the end of WWI. Alawites are abouit 17% of the population of Syria, and that are as a group, more urban, better educated,and more prosperous than the Sunni majority. Alawites also drink alcohol and believe in reincarnation, unlike most Muslims.

 

The usual tradition in Syria was that some area would rise in rebellion against Assad's father,  who would then repress it severely, even leveling it. But the US invasion of Iraq made weapons very available to everyone.

 

Sharecropping peasants were impoverished by a severe drought, with temperatures as high as 135º F, and were unable to pay the rent as usual, and were facing eviction: Assad promised to do something and did nothing useful, and an armed rebellion began. And then most of the dissatisfied minorities rose up against Assad and one another. There is no dominant ethnic/religious group in Syria.

 

Politically, the Baathist Party, which is a wacky pro-Pan Arab  Unity version of  Socialism. rules Syria,In reality, Assad is a dictator, and does whatever Assad telsit to om

 

Mostly correct. Opinions would differ on whether Alawites are Muslims or not. The Shia in Iran and Lebanon (Hizbullah) stretch to include them under the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine as a form of heterodoxical Shia. But theologically? No so much.

 

Also, most minority groups in Syrian have generally allied themselves with Assad out of self-preservation. There have been a few breaks in that, but it is the general rule. A secular-ish dictatorship, even as brutal as Assad's is has been a better bet for most small minorities than risking a fanatical Sunni lead revolution.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XavierOnassis said:

The US did not invade Syria to depose Assad. Their purpose was to drive Isis out of territory held by this self-proclaimed caliphate.

Syria has been in the Soviet and then the Russian, sphere of influence since the early 1950's. Syria is Israel's most serious ally since the Jimmy Carter convinced the rulers of Egypt and Jordan to accept huge amounts of aid from the US in exchange for an agreement not to attack Israel. Assad mostly limited himself to meddling in Lebanese politics. Lebanon was once part of the same Ottoman province as Syria. The French separated Lebanon, which then had a Christian majority, from the rest of Syria, which was and still is a mishmash of  many sects of Islam that detest one another,and also some Druzes, who may or may not be some form of Muslims, only anthropologists have all the details: it is a religion so secret that most of its members cannot tell you the basic tenets, which are conveniently secret.

 

Assad is a member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam, which is important because they sucked up to the French  who got the mandate to rule Syria after the Ottoman Empire collapsed around the end of WWI. Alawites are abouit 17% of the population of Syria, and that are as a group, more urban, better educated,and more prosperous than the Sunni majority. Alawites also drink alcohol and believe in reincarnation, unlike most Muslims.

 

The usual tradition in Syria was that some area would rise in rebellion against Assad's father,  who would then repress it severely, even leveling it. But the US invasion of Iraq made weapons very available to everyone.

 

Sharecropping peasants were impoverished by a severe drought, with temperatures as high as 135º F, and were unable to pay the rent as usual, and were facing eviction: Assad promised to do something and did nothing useful, and an armed rebellion began. And then most of the dissatisfied minorities rose up against Assad and one another. There is no dominant ethnic/religious group in Syria.

 

Politically, the Baathist Party, which is a wacky pro-Pan Arab  Unity version of  Socialism. rules Syria,In reality, Assad is a dictator, and does whatever Assad telsit to om

 

 

'''''The US did not invade Syria to depose Assad.''''

 

Dumbass......Obama said a million times.....""ASSAD MUST AND WILL GO"""

 

But then Putin punked BAMMY....Assad will stay it seems!!  :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Obama had only ONE GOAL for Syria......TAKE OUT ASSAD by any means.

 

It was PIPELINE dream.   Assad rejected Saudi/Qatar pipelines....then "suddenly" a civil war started....( a Bammy war!!! )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

Mostly correct. Opinions would differ on whether Alawites are Muslims or not. The Shia in Iran and Lebanon (Hizbullah) stretch to include them under the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine as a form of heterodoxical Shia. But theologically? No so much.

 

Also, most minority groups in Syrian have generally allied themselves with Assad out of self-preservation. There have been a few breaks in that, but it is the general rule. A secular-ish dictatorship, even as brutal as Assad's is has been a better bet for most small minorities than risking a fanatical Sunni lead revolution.

 

Bill

An actual democratic government in Syria or Lebanon is probably impossible. Compromise is not something any of the groups involved does well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, CrimeaRiver said:

 

 

'''''The US did not invade Syria to depose Assad.''''

 

Dumbass......Obama said a million times.....""ASSAD MUST AND WILL GO"""

 

But then Putin punked BAMMY....Assad will stay it seems!!  :lol:

 

 

Obama clearly wanted Assad to step down. But he did not intend that the tiny number of troops he sent into Syria would accomplish this. Again he did not invade Syria with the goal of removing Assad. It's bloody obvious.

The US could not send an army large enough into Syria to defeat Assad without  getting into a war with the Russians, who want their Mediterranean seaport S. of Latakia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump said he wants to stop ‘ridiculous endless wars’ — now he is sending thousands of troops to Saudi Arabia

Almost a month has passed since the September 14 attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities, which members of both President Donald Trump’s administration and the Saudi government have blamed on Iran. And on Friday, according to Reuters, the Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. will be sending a large military deployment to Saudi Arabia to help Saudi forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, benson13 said:

Trump said he wants to stop ‘ridiculous endless wars’ — now he is sending thousands of troops to Saudi Arabia

Almost a month has passed since the September 14 attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities, which members of both President Donald Trump’s administration and the Saudi government have blamed on Iran. And on Friday, according to Reuters, the Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. will be sending a large military deployment to Saudi Arabia to help Saudi forces.

 

 

 WOW..i saw that coming !! most of it will be missile air defences !! mostly as a confidence booster for the Saudi regime ..i think the troops will be safe as long as they stay away from oil wells and structures.. too many troops would irk the types that get upset about infidels in the Islamic holy land . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and he's sending F-35s to Turkey

 

 

after they just recently bought Missiles from Russia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep Trump is giving up the stealth capabilities of our f-35 to the Russians through turkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, slideman said:

Yep Trump is giving up the stealth capabilities of our f-35 to the Russians through turkey

STFU YOU PUSSYBOY FUKKING POS COWARD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, slideman said:

Yep Trump is giving up the stealth capabilities of our f-35 to the Russians through turkey

 

   too late..no joke.. stealth drones already here..Yemen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, benson13 said:

and he's sending F-35s to Turkey

 

 

after they just recently bought Missiles from Russia

 

F-35's built in Vermont with the unwavering support of Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt).

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, slideman said:

Yep Trump is giving up the stealth capabilities of our f-35 to the Russians through turkey

The tech was already stolen and copied by the Chinese. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Obama clearly wanted Assad to step down. But he did not intend that the tiny number of troops he sent into Syria would accomplish this. Again he did not invade Syria with the goal of removing Assad. It's bloody obvious.

The US could not send an army large enough into Syria to defeat Assad without  getting into a war with the Russians, who want their Mediterranean seaport S. of Latakia.

 

Exactly......that's why he had a proxy army.....ISIS :lol:.  Thanks to Trump/Putin....FAIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slideman said:

Yep Trump is giving up the stealth capabilities of our f-35 to the Russians through turkey

are you gonna peepee in yer panties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

The US did not invade Syria to depose Assad. Their purpose was to drive Isis out of territory held by this self-proclaimed caliphate.

 

OK ... another outright LIE that I can add to your list, snowflake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BeAChooser said:

 

OK ... another outright LIE that I can add to your list, snowflake.

Obama did not send enough troops to Syria to depose Assad.

At no time did Obama state that he was sending troops to Syria to depose Assad.

There were never any US troops anywhere near Damascus, the capital.

You are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo fulla sh!t!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...