• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Invading Syria (Iraq 2). Yay or nay?

Should we or shouldn't we?

  • Attack and remove both Assad and ISIS

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • Attack and reinstate Assad

    Votes: 4 8.3%
  • Only continue with current policy, ie bombing raids

    Votes: 8 16.7%
  • Let them sort it out on their own

    Votes: 16 33.3%
  • I don't know. It's a fucking mess no matter what

    Votes: 17 35.4%

  • Total voters
    48
And what happens if and when the Syrian government has dealt with the other rebels and turns against the Kurds?

The Kurds smash 'em - but Assad has his head screwed on, and would never do anything so dim.
Kurds couldn't smash shit without US air support. The US pulled the rug under Kurds several times in Iraq, and it was Saddam who was smashing them. If US takes Assad's side in Syria like it did with Saddam, what makes you think that history won't repeat itself?
 
The Kurds smash 'em - but Assad has his head screwed on, and would never do anything so dim.
Kurds couldn't smash shit without US air support. The US pulled the rug under Kurds several times in Iraq, and it was Saddam who was smashing them. If US takes Assad's side in Syria like it did with Saddam, what makes you think that history won't repeat itself?

Oh, the Yanks, while they lasts, can destroy any hope anywhere, or so they believe, for a time. President Assad has a good, battle-hardened army however, as have the Kurds, and as in every other country they ever tried to colonies, the Master Race will be kicked back to America, squeaking and squealing. All they'll dare is drop bombs on hospitals.
 
Kurds couldn't smash shit without US air support. The US pulled the rug under Kurds several times in Iraq, and it was Saddam who was smashing them. If US takes Assad's side in Syria like it did with Saddam, what makes you think that history won't repeat itself?

Oh, the Yanks, while they lasts, can destroy any hope anywhere, or so they believe, for a time. President Assad has a good, battle-hardened army however, as have the Kurds, and as in every other country they ever tried to colonies, the Master Race will be kicked back to America, squeaking and squealing. All they'll dare is drop bombs on hospitals.
I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make is. If both Assad and Kurds have good battle-hardened armies, but only one side has air support, which side do you think is going to "smash" the other in a confrontation?
 
Oh, the Yanks, while they lasts, can destroy any hope anywhere, or so they believe, for a time. President Assad has a good, battle-hardened army however, as have the Kurds, and as in every other country they ever tried to colonies, the Master Race will be kicked back to America, squeaking and squealing. All they'll dare is drop bombs on hospitals.
I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make is. If both Assad and Kurds have good battle-hardened armies, but only one side has air support, which side do you think is going to "smash" the other in a confrontation?

Grammar aside....What was being pointed out to the obtuse is that the U.S. has shoved its colonial funnel into country after country with troops and alliances with dictators, etc. and one by one, they are getting their asses kicked out regardless of whether it has been good for the folks who kick us out. It has been a game of resource grabbing by American dominated or allied trans national corporations who rely on the U.S. military to protect them. When the prople realize they are being exploited, the rise up and in the case of oil, they rise up as "Muslims" with fanatic zeal and poorly informed terrorism, but even that seems to be prevailing. I think that is what iolo was trying to say. So it becomes a contest between Islam and Petrolianity, the oil company's only offering...and Islam offers (but does not deliver) much more than the exploiters and has many very cruel branches.
 
I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make is. If both Assad and Kurds have good battle-hardened armies, but only one side has air support, which side do you think is going to "smash" the other in a confrontation?

Grammar aside....What was being pointed out to the obtuse is that the U.S. has shoved its colonial funnel into country after country with troops and alliances with dictators, etc. and one by one, they are getting their asses kicked out regardless of whether it has been good for the folks who kick us out. It has been a game of resource grabbing by American dominated or allied trans national corporations who rely on the U.S. military to protect them. When the prople realize they are being exploited, the rise up and in the case of oil, they rise up as "Muslims" with fanatic zeal and poorly informed terrorism, but even that seems to be prevailing. I think that is what iolo was trying to say. So it becomes a contest between Islam and Petrolianity, the oil company's only offering...and Islam offers (but does not deliver) much more than the exploiters and has many very cruel branches.
If that was the point, I fail to see the relevance. The question was whether USA should support Assad. Dong so in my opinion would be just a repeat of US supporting Saddam Hussein in 1970s and 80s, and that didn't turn out well.
 
Assad and the Kurds aren't fighting each other, according to this. The Kurds fly the Syrian flag in addition to their own. The regime pays their civil service salaries.

And, in another layer of complexity, they're supplied from Damascus through IS territory, IS levies tolls on the trucks.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/dec/03/syrian-kurds-are-winning/

Amina’s office that I came across an initially baffling sight. A statue of Hafez al-Assad, the former Syrian president and founder of the Assad dynasty, stood unmolested at a city-center roundabout. Nearby two photographs of his son, Bashar, were on display in the front windows of Syrianair. While Kurds fly their own red, green, and yellow flag throughout the region, the Syrian national flag was hoisted above a lane of concrete blocks leading to the entrance of a small garrison.

Here is one of the complexities of the Syrian war. The regime retains control of roughly one tenth of Qamishli, plus the local airport and the connecting road as well as the Arab part of the town of Hasakah, some fifty miles to the south. This symbolic toehold allows it to claim that it still controls the capitals of all Syrian provinces except Raqqa, which is held by ISIS, and Idlib, which is held by other extreme Islamists, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. In return the Kurds benefit by having Damascus continuing to pay the salaries of the Kurdish region’s teachers, hospital doctors, and other public-sector workers. Civil aircraft under control of the Assad regime still fly regularly from Qamishli to Damascus and Lattakia. For students enrolled there and for businessmen this provides a useful link, since overground travel has become too dangerous.
 
Assad and the Kurds aren't fighting each other, according to this.
They aren't fighting each other yet.

If Assad manages to push back and defeat ISIS/Daesh I see a conflict with the Kurds as an inevitability. I'm pretty sure Syrian Kurds aren't longing for Syrian supremacy again. Especially since Iraqi Kurdistan has gotten so much positive press. It seems to be the least dysfunctional country in the region. Who wouldn't want to be a part of that?
 
On this side of the Atlantic here in 'merica we're resorting out whether we should be secular of theocratic state. This IMHO will stop when we get it across that when someone says free and equal someone means free and equal.

There on the other side of the Atlantic beyond the Mediterranean in the desert lands religeous despot and theocratic alike are combating modernism and the end of nomadism through enforced conservative theocratic states.

The only linkage between the two are fear. Fear should be diminished by distance, but, like in the medieval centuries it is stooked by religiosity.

So here we are acting out of fear.

You'da thunk, being modern we'd have solved that problem by now, but hell no. Kill,kill, kill, is all that seems to exist.

So we should keep our alliances by keeping up the bombing and continue to grow up and resolove our respective our side of the big water challenges.

Seriously we need to get our house in order. We've liberalized acceptance and equality and we've joined in moves toward more European social democracy. Let's keep that up. Our challenges is to contain those with their hair on fire and get backto extending civility within our multicultural secular haven. The other stuff will work itself out by the players on the scene. My only suggestion toward that end in that arena we takeout skin out of their game. Move away from oil, move away from colonialist mentality, move away from pointing out where they are going wrong, and move on with more equitable commerce with the middle eastern world.
 
Maybe so, but IMO it's a point in Putins favor - keep the regime. Not Assad, but the regime.

That's always the way to go. That was the genius move following WW2. The allies allowed Germany to keep it's administration intact, minus a couple of guys at the top. Most of government is mundane crap, getting water pipes fixed, getting the garbage collected and making sure school teachers get paid. Even if those same people are guilty of all manner of atrocities, we're all better off keeping them. Just ask them a leading question "you were all against Assad all along, weren't you?" and whoever nods vigorously while smiling we keep. South Africa did a truth and reconciliation commission. Whoever publicly admitted to their crimes and asked for forgiveness was automatically pardoned. Liberia did the same thing.

Any country who kicks out the administration always collapses into chaos. So yeah... keep the regime. Also, a gradual democratization process is always more likely to succeed than any swift stroke. Democracy is a culture and a collection of rituals. It takes time to develop these for each country.
 
Too much of the thinking is along the lines of video games or stratego. The US doesn't need the oil from there anymore.
 
We created many of the middle east's issues by interfering. Why does anyone thing that more of the same is an intelligent solution?
 
Oh, the Yanks, while they lasts, can destroy any hope anywhere, or so they believe, for a time. President Assad has a good, battle-hardened army however, as have the Kurds, and as in every other country they ever tried to colonies, the Master Race will be kicked back to America, squeaking and squealing. All they'll dare is drop bombs on hospitals.
I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make is. If both Assad and Kurds have good battle-hardened armies, but only one side has air support, which side do you think is going to "smash" the other in a confrontation?

If the Kurds move outside their territory, the Syrian Army. If the Syrian army attacks the Kurds, the Kurds, obviously.

- - - Updated - - -

We created many of the middle east's issues by interfering. Why does anyone thing that more of the same is an intelligent solution?
In the case of the British tories, because it divides the opposition at as time when they are putting through a notably smelly budget and destroying the NHS.
 
Back
Top Bottom