US no longer making pro-Russian Assad an enemy

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The United States’ diplomatic policy on Syria for now is no longer focused on making the war-torn country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, leave power, the US ambassador to the United Nations said on Thursday, in a departure from the Obama administration’s initial and public stance on Assad’s fate.

The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Assad must step down.

http://nypost.com/2017/03/31/us-changes-its-policy-on-assad-staying-in-power/

This better alignment with Russia on Syria has been talked about before, but now it's official US policy.

 

[Derec]

To be honest, the policy of seeking regime change was, for all practical purposes, abandoned when Obama reneged on his "red line" and went along with Putin's plan on chemical weapons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The United States’ diplomatic policy on Syria for now is no longer focused on making the war-torn country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, leave power, the US ambassador to the United Nations said on Thursday, in a departure from the Obama administration’s initial and public stance on Assad’s fate.

The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Assad must step down.

http://nypost.com/2017/03/31/us-changes-its-policy-on-assad-staying-in-power/

This better alignment with Russia on Syria has been talked about before, but now it's official US policy.

Nothing to see here. "Fake news", etc... etc...

 

[funinspace]

The United States’ diplomatic policy on Syria for now is no longer focused on making the war-torn country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, leave power, the US ambassador to the United Nations said on Thursday, in a departure from the Obama administration’s initial and public stance on Assad’s fate.

The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Assad must step down.

http://nypost.com/2017/03/31/us-changes-its-policy-on-assad-staying-in-power/

This better alignment with Russia on Syria has been talked about before, but now it's official US policy.

From various sources it sounds like it will be official indifference. El Cheato will accidentally stumble upon a less bad policy. Though I'm not sure how they will reduce Iranian influence at the same time as they ignore Assad. I suspect that they will just accept Iranian influence in Syria within quotes, and then continue their anti-Iranian games elsewhere like Yemen.

 

[whichphilosophy]

http://nypost.com/2017/03/31/us-changes-its-policy-on-assad-staying-in-power/

This better alignment with Russia on Syria has been talked about before, but now it's official US policy.

From various sources it sounds like it will be official indifference. El Cheato will accidentally stumble upon a less bad policy. Though I'm not sure how they will reduce Iranian influence at the same time as they ignore Assad. I suspect that they will just accept Iranian influence in Syria within quotes, and then continue their anti-Iranian games elsewhere like Yemen.

The US shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place in trying to destroy a country after inciting genocide while implementing regime change.

Assad is the best out of a bad lot. Who should take his place; ISIS leaders or a rag tag bunch of splinter groups some of which have been aligned to Al Nusra at times.
Not much of a choice.

It's a good idea for the US to work with Russia to resolve global terrorism.

 

[funinspace]

From various sources it sounds like it will be official indifference. El Cheato will accidentally stumble upon a less bad policy. Though I'm not sure how they will reduce Iranian influence at the same time as they ignore Assad. I suspect that they will just accept Iranian influence in Syria within quotes, and then continue their anti-Iranian games elsewhere like Yemen.

The US shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place in trying to destroy a country after inciting genocide while implementing regime change.

Assad is the best out of a bad lot. Who should take his place; ISIS leaders or a rag tag bunch of splinter groups some of which have been aligned to Al Nusra at times.
Not much of a choice.

I've been arguing for years that helping to destabilize Assad, or to cooperate with ME dictatorships trying to do so is a bad idea. It is especially bad, when there is absolutely no post dictatorship game plan or commitment for stabilizing a country.

It's a good idea for the US to work with Russia to resolve global terrorism.

Yeah, sure...when it is convenient for El Cheato. Tell that to the Yemeni people or the people in the horn of Africa...as proudly made in America weapons continue on killing at large.

 

[barbos]

To be honest, the policy of seeking regime change was, for all practical purposes, abandoned when Obama reneged on his "red line" and went along with Putin's plan on chemical weapons.

And it's good thing that he did cause It's obvious that Qatari and/or Saudi intelligence were behind that chemical attack.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From various sources it sounds like it will be official indifference. El Cheato will accidentally stumble upon a less bad policy. Though I'm not sure how they will reduce Iranian influence at the same time as they ignore Assad. I suspect that they will just accept Iranian influence in Syria within quotes, and then continue their anti-Iranian games elsewhere like Yemen.

The US shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place in trying to destroy a country after inciting genocide while implementing regime change.

Assad is the best out of a bad lot.

Assad isn't the "best out of a bad lot". He is the only option simply because of inertia.

Who should take his place; ISIS leaders or a rag tag bunch of splinter groups some of which have been aligned to Al Nusra at times.
Not much of a choice.

There is no choice. Well, there is, but it'll be an Assad look alike that likes Russia. The Pro-Russia Syrian regime was never going to be toppled.

It's a good idea for the US to work with Russia to resolve global terrorism.

Uh huh. Russia doesn't give a shit about "global" terrorism.

 

[barbos]

Uh huh. Russia doesn't give a shit about "global" terrorism.

Neither does US.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Uh huh. Russia doesn't give a shit about "global" terrorism.

Neither does US.

Sure the US does. They have more assets globally.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The US shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place in trying to destroy a country after inciting genocide while implementing regime change.

Assad is the best out of a bad lot.

Assad isn't the "best out of a bad lot". He is the only option simply because of inertia.

Who should take his place; ISIS leaders or a rag tag bunch of splinter groups some of which have been aligned to Al Nusra at times.
Not much of a choice.

There is no choice. Well, there is, but it'll be an Assad look alike that likes Russia. The Pro-Russia Syrian regime was never going to be toppled.

It's a good idea for the US to work with Russia to resolve global terrorism.

Uh huh. Russia doesn't give a shit about "global" terrorism.

Russia does care about global terrorism. It's about time Trump and Putin sealed this with a Russian kiss (never mind that poster of them having a French kiss)

 

[J842P]

The United States’ diplomatic policy on Syria for now is no longer focused on making the war-torn country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, leave power, the US ambassador to the United Nations said on Thursday, in a departure from the Obama administration’s initial and public stance on Assad’s fate.

The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Assad must step down.

http://nypost.com/2017/03/31/us-changes-its-policy-on-assad-staying-in-power/

This better alignment with Russia on Syria has been talked about before, but now it's official US policy.

Good. This was the sanest policy to begin with.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://nypost.com/2017/03/31/us-changes-its-policy-on-assad-staying-in-power/

This better alignment with Russia on Syria has been talked about before, but now it's official US policy.

Good. This was the sanest policy to begin with.

Is it? Let the Russians get whatever they want? Fuck the Syrians!

The best policy is to remove and replace Assad with a humanitarian leadership. Sure, this option isn't possible and can't happen, but it should cost Russia some diplomatic capital to keep the murderous fuck in charge in Syria. Sure, Assad will step down eventually and be replaced with a clone. That is certain, but Russia shouldn't be allowed to continually prop up such a dictator without paying a diplomatic price.

- - - Updated - - -

To be honest, the policy of seeking regime change was, for all practical purposes, abandoned when Obama reneged on his "red line" and went along with Putin's plan on chemical weapons.

And it's good thing that he did cause It's obvious that Qatari and/or Saudi intelligence were behind that chemical attack.

Have any of the chemical attacks been verified by anyone other than Governments? I remember reading from the MSF that there really aren't any feet on the ground and it is nearly impossible to tell what is actually happening with these alleged events.

 

[barbos]

To be honest, the policy of seeking regime change was, for all practical purposes, abandoned when Obama reneged on his "red line" and went along with Putin's plan on chemical weapons.

And it's good thing that he did cause It's obvious that Qatari and/or Saudi intelligence were behind that chemical attack.

Have any of the chemical attacks been verified by anyone other than Governments? I remember reading from the MSF that there really aren't any feet on the ground and it is nearly impossible to tell what is actually happening with these alleged events.

US had radio intercepts which are consistent with Syrian government nor Army having nothing to do with the attack. And Assad is not an idiot anyway. Once Obama/Kerry mentioned red line it was a matter of time before Qatari/Saudi would try to do something like that.

 

[ZiprHead]

http://nypost.com/2017/03/31/us-changes-its-policy-on-assad-staying-in-power/

This better alignment with Russia on Syria has been talked about before, but now it's official US policy.

From various sources it sounds like it will be official indifference. El Cheato will accidentally stumble upon a less bad policy. Though I'm not sure how they will reduce Iranian influence at the same time as they ignore Assad. I suspect that they will just accept Iranian influence in Syria within quotes, and then continue their anti-Iranian games elsewhere like Yemen.

Are You Ready for War with Iran? Trumps Generals Are

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To be honest, the policy of seeking regime change was, for all practical purposes, abandoned when Obama reneged on his "red line" and went along with Putin's plan on chemical weapons.

And it's good thing that he did cause It's obvious that Qatari and/or Saudi intelligence were behind that chemical attack.

Have any of the chemical attacks been verified by anyone other than Governments? I remember reading from the MSF that there really aren't any feet on the ground and it is nearly impossible to tell what is actually happening with these alleged events.

US had radio intercepts which are consistent with Syrian government nor Army having nothing to do with the attack. And Assad is not an idiot anyway. Once Obama/Kerry mentioned red line it was a matter of time before Qatari/Saudi would try to do something like that.

So your evidence of a chemical attack is what then?

- - - Updated - - -

From various sources it sounds like it will be official indifference. El Cheato will accidentally stumble upon a less bad policy. Though I'm not sure how they will reduce Iranian influence at the same time as they ignore Assad. I suspect that they will just accept Iranian influence in Syria within quotes, and then continue their anti-Iranian games elsewhere like Yemen.

Are You Ready for War with Iran? Trumps Generals Are

General Joseph Votel, U.S. CENTCOM commander, testified to the House Armed Services Committee this week that the greatest destabilizing force in the Middle East is Iran.

And some in the US Military want the US to be the greatest destabilizing force in the Middle East.

 

[funinspace]

From various sources it sounds like it will be official indifference. El Cheato will accidentally stumble upon a less bad policy. Though I'm not sure how they will reduce Iranian influence at the same time as they ignore Assad. I suspect that they will just accept Iranian influence in Syria within quotes, and then continue their anti-Iranian games elsewhere like Yemen.

Are You Ready for War with Iran? Trumps Generals Are

That certainly is one of my concerns about El Cheato, in that elements of the military will push an agenda of warring upon Iran. His SecDef Mattis has a hard on for punishing Iran, and so did Flynn. And with El Cheato being so well versed in the ME issues, I'm sure it will be hard to con him into doing something really stupid...

 

[ZiprHead]

I predicted right after the election that we would be at war with Iran within two years. (sigh)

 

[J842P]

Good. This was the sanest policy to begin with.

Is it? Let the Russians get whatever they want? Fuck the Syrians!

The best policy is to remove and replace Assad with a humanitarian leadership. Sure, this option isn't possible and can't happen, but it should cost Russia some diplomatic capital to keep the murderous fuck in charge in Syria. Sure, Assad will step down eventually and be replaced with a clone. That is certain, but Russia shouldn't be allowed to continually prop up such a dictator without paying a diplomatic price.

What? Our interests align with Russia in Syria. I hate to break it to you, but the USA and Russia prop up dictatorships all the time. It's sort of the theme of the last 60 years. Why should Russia "pay a diplomatic price"? Why do you care if "Russia gets what they want?" Our foreign policy should not revolve around trying to undermine Russia. That is madness. That is the exact same madness that lead us to the brink of nuclear war, which was only averted because of luck, and a few good Americans and Russian.

Really really, you shouldn't let your hate for Trump consume you and drive you like this. And rememer:

Whoever fights with monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster in the process. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

Also, again, I hate to break it to you, but by *not* supporting Assad, you are saying "Fuck you" to all the secular and religious minorities in Syria, which enjoy relative tolerance under the Assad regime, and whatever would realistically replace it would be a fucking disaster for their rights. Also, contrary to what the State Department woudd have you believe, many (most?) Syrians support the regime. In fact, even most Sunnis support the regime, and the SAA is mostly Sunni! You don't get your news solely from the State Department, right? The same State Department that has been propping up dictators in Yemen and giving them weapons which they use indiscriminately in their bid against the Houthi rebels, right?

 

[J842P]

And some in the US Military want the US to be the greatest destabilizing force in the Middle East.

I don't think that's what anyone wants, but certainly the policies that most in the US State Department (Obama's and Bushes) have tried to pursue have made that a reality. And, unfortunately, to many men in the military the only hammer the know is war, and the whole world is a plank of nails.

I think the greatest vindication of Obama, the man, was the so-called State Department Mutiny.

Unfortunately, many in the US use foreign policy to score cheap political points at home.