ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Someone should convince them that Al Baghdadi is Iranian and a closet Shia, every fighter jet from Jeddah to Al Sharjah will fly over Raqqa 
Team Assad?
Don't know, too difficult to predict right now.
By the way, there might be some early signs that the "rebels" are slowly and gradually running out of fighters in (or because of) Aleppo. They forfeited 3 neighbourhoods in Homs and Damascus today in a deal with the regime to transfer all the fighters there to Idlib (I think they're headed to South Aleppo). I think the regime also got the impression that that's their plan, so he decided to evacuate the neighbourhoods gradually, batch by batch, over 2 months. A couple of hundred fighters per batch (it's reported that there are 2000-3000 fighters in those neighbourhoods). Still early (and those deals might still collapse), but might be an (early) sign.
The US itching to intervene, and Erdogan losing his head also tells me that things aren't looking good for the "rebels" right now.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/usa-special-forces-iraq-151201160932529.html
Yes, because you were doing a bang up job before the US started assisting.
Yes, because you were doing a bang up job before the US started assisting.http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/usa-special-forces-iraq-151201160932529.html
What do you expect him to say? "Yeah our military's a bit shit and we've relied entirely on our militias, so I'm going to go ahead and welcome the support of Iraq's grim reaper the United States because we all love them"
Well, given he said that Iraq was not getting enough support from the US in October, I'd expect some statement acknowledging that this shows an increased level of support from the US. Abadi can recognize the limitations of his forces without denigrating them.
Certain targets can't be dealt with using only air support and semi-competent ground forces. If there was a good chance to capture or kill Al-Baghdadi, it would probably be done with allied special forces. In Syria this May, special operations forces killed a high ranking financial officer in ISIS who was responsible for their oil operations. It also allowed them to gather intelligence from the site rather than destroying it. They also worked with Kurdish forces to rescue 70 hostages from an ISIS prison in October. The SAS have no doubt been involved in certain operations as well as has been reported.
Iraqis see the US as the harbinger of death and destruction. He's not going to come out singing their praises.
Isis: The munitions trail.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/baad34e4-973c-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html#axzz3tAykCXag
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/baad34e4-973c-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html#axzz3tAykCXag
You guys are more knowledgable than me, so hopefully will be able to help me a little. I've got a presentation for my last Uni assessment of the year and it's about arguing for military intervention against IS by the international community. It asks to mention article 2 of the UN charter and VII of the security council which I'll look up myself, but are there any really good pieces that put forward an argument for intervention that you would recommend?
The Kurds don't have much of a problem with the US. Unfortunately, the rest of Iraq is far less reasonable than the Kurds. Large majorities of Sunnis and majorities of Shias supported insurgent attacks on US/Coalition forces despite the fact that the insurgents were better at and more interested in killing civilians than they were coalition forces.
Depends which insurgents you're talking about. The Mahdi army were pretty popular and tended to focus more on US troops, ditto for some other Sunni resistance groups. The Al Qaeda affiliated ones were hated by the majority of Iraqis.
And no its not unreasonable considering half a million kids starved to death because of sanctions, and the entire country decimated because of a war fought on bogus pretenses. So they have every right to be distrusting and resentful towards the US, which is largely responsible for all this mess.
The Kurds were lucky enough to not be affected by the US's illegal war because their regions remained unaffected. And I say that as a Kurd.
Weren't the chemical weapons Saddam used on the Kurds produced using US /French supplies as the starting material?
Be warned - It's Glenn Greenwald - I know a lot of people can't stand him and unfortunately the video has been pulled from Youtube - searching for other links atm
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/
They were indeed.
Even after they were used on the Kurds, efforts were made by the US to downplay it out of fear Hussein would eclipse the Iranians as Public enemy/Boogeyman no.1
Russia says it has proof Turkey involved in Islamic State oil trade
An undated still image taken from a video made available by the Russian Defence Ministry in Moscow, Russia December 2, 2015, shows the Turkish-Syrian border crossing. Russia's defence ministry officials displayed satellite images on Wednesday which they said showed columns...
Russia's defense ministry said on Wednesday it had proof that Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and his family were benefiting from the illegal smuggling of oil from Islamic State-held territory in Syria and Iraq.
Moscow and Ankara have been locked in a war of words since last week when a Turkish air force jet shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian-Turkish border, the most serious incident between Russia and a NATO state in half a century.
Erdogan responded by saying no one had the right to "slander" Turkey by accusing it of buying oil from Islamic State, and that he would stand down if such allegations were proven to be true. But speaking during a visit to Qatar, he also said he did not want relations with Moscow to worsen further.
At a briefing in Moscow, defense ministry officials displayed satellite images which they said showed columns of tanker trucks loading with oil at installations controlled by Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and then crossing the border into neighboring Turkey.
The officials did not specify what direct evidence they had of the involvement of Erdogan and his family, an allegation that the Turkish president has vehemently denied.
"Turkey is the main consumer of the oil stolen from its rightful owners, Syria and Iraq. According to information we've received, the senior political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family - are involved in this criminal business," said Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov.
"Maybe I'm being too blunt, but one can only entrust control over this thieving business to one's closest associates."
"In the West, no one has asked questions about the fact that the Turkish president's son heads one of the biggest energy companies, or that his son-in-law has been appointed energy minister. What a marvelous family business!"
"The cynicism of the Turkish leadership knows no limits. Look what they're doing. They went into someone else's country, they are robbing it without compunction," Antonov said.
Erdogan last week denied that Turkey procures oil from anything other than legitimate sources.
The United States said it rejected the premise that the Turkish government was in league with the militants to smuggle oil. "We frankly see no evidence, none, to support such an accusation," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.
Erdogan has said Ankara is taking steps to prevent fuel smuggling, and he challenged anyone who accused his government of collaborating with Islamic State to prove their allegations.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said Turkey had made progress in sealing its border with Syria, but Islamic State was still exploiting gaps to bring in foreign fighters and sell oil.
WEAPONS FLOW
The Russian defense ministry also alleged that the same criminal networks which were smuggling oil into Turkey were also supplying weapons, equipment and training to Islamic State and other Islamist groups.
"According to our reliable intelligence data, Turkey has been carrying out such operations for a long period and on a regular basis. And most importantly, it does not plan to stop them," Sergei Rudskoy, deputy head of the Russian military's General Staff, told reporters.
The defense ministry said its surveillance revealed hundreds of tanker trucks gathering at Islamic State-controlled sites in Iraq and Syria to load up with oil, and it questioned why the U.S.-led coalition was not launching more air strikes on them.
"It's hard not to notice them," Rudskoy said of the lines of trucks shown on satellite images.
Russian officials said their country's bombing campaign had made a significant dent in Islamic State's ability to produce, refine and sell oil.
U.S. officials say coalition air strikes have destroyed hundreds of IS oil trucks while the Russian campaign has mainly targeted opponents of the Syrian government who are not from Islamic State, which is also known as ISIL.
"The irony of the Russians raising this concern is that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that the largest consumer of ISIL oil is actually Bashar al-Assad and his regime, a regime that only remains in place because it is being propped up by the Russians," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
The State Department's Toner said U.S. information was that Islamic State was selling oil at the wellheads to middlemen who were involved in smuggling it across the frontier into Turkey.
SMUGGLING ROUTES
Russian officials described three main routes by which they said oil and oil products were smuggled from Islamic State territory into Turkey.
The ministry said the Western route took oil produced at fields near the Syrian city of Raqqa to the settlement of Azaz on the border with Turkey.
From there the columns of tanker trucks pass through the Turkish town of Reyhanli, the ministry said, citing what it said were satellite pictures of hundreds of such trucks moving through the border crossing without obstruction.
"There is no inspection of the vehicles carried out ... on the Turkish side," said Rudskoy.
Some of the smuggled cargoes go to the Turkish domestic market, while some is exported via the Turkish Mediterranean ports of Iskenderun and Dortyol, the ministry said.
Another main route for smuggled oil, according to the ministry, runs from Deir Ez-zour in Syria to the Syrian border crossing at Al-Qamishli. It said the trucks then took the crude for refining at the Turkish city of Batman.
A third route took oil from eastern Syria and western Iraq into the south-eastern corner of Turkey, the ministry said.
It said its satellite surveillance had captured hundreds of trucks crossing the border in that area back in the summer, and that since then there had been no reduction in the flow.
The defense ministry officials said the information they released on Wednesday was only part of the evidence they have in their possession, and that they would be releasing further intelligence in the next days and weeks.
An undated still image taken from a video made available by the Russian Defence Ministry in Moscow, Russia December 2, 2015, shows the Turkish-Syrian border crossing. Russia's defence ministry officials displayed satellite images on Wednesday which they said showed columns...
Russia's defense ministry said on Wednesday it had proof that Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and his family were benefiting from the illegal smuggling of oil from Islamic State-held territory in Syria and Iraq.
Moscow and Ankara have been locked in a war of words since last week when a Turkish air force jet shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian-Turkish border, the most serious incident between Russia and a NATO state in half a century.
Erdogan responded by saying no one had the right to "slander" Turkey by accusing it of buying oil from Islamic State, and that he would stand down if such allegations were proven to be true. But speaking during a visit to Qatar, he also said he did not want relations with Moscow to worsen further.
At a briefing in Moscow, defense ministry officials displayed satellite images which they said showed columns of tanker trucks loading with oil at installations controlled by Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and then crossing the border into neighboring Turkey.
The officials did not specify what direct evidence they had of the involvement of Erdogan and his family, an allegation that the Turkish president has vehemently denied.
"Turkey is the main consumer of the oil stolen from its rightful owners, Syria and Iraq. According to information we've received, the senior political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family - are involved in this criminal business," said Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov.
"Maybe I'm being too blunt, but one can only entrust control over this thieving business to one's closest associates."
"In the West, no one has asked questions about the fact that the Turkish president's son heads one of the biggest energy companies, or that his son-in-law has been appointed energy minister. What a marvelous family business!"
"The cynicism of the Turkish leadership knows no limits. Look what they're doing. They went into someone else's country, they are robbing it without compunction," Antonov said.
Erdogan last week denied that Turkey procures oil from anything other than legitimate sources.
The United States said it rejected the premise that the Turkish government was in league with the militants to smuggle oil. "We frankly see no evidence, none, to support such an accusation," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.
Erdogan has said Ankara is taking steps to prevent fuel smuggling, and he challenged anyone who accused his government of collaborating with Islamic State to prove their allegations.
On Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said Turkey had made progress in sealing its border with Syria, but Islamic State was still exploiting gaps to bring in foreign fighters and sell oil.
WEAPONS FLOW
The Russian defense ministry also alleged that the same criminal networks which were smuggling oil into Turkey were also supplying weapons, equipment and training to Islamic State and other Islamist groups.
"According to our reliable intelligence data, Turkey has been carrying out such operations for a long period and on a regular basis. And most importantly, it does not plan to stop them," Sergei Rudskoy, deputy head of the Russian military's General Staff, told reporters.
The defense ministry said its surveillance revealed hundreds of tanker trucks gathering at Islamic State-controlled sites in Iraq and Syria to load up with oil, and it questioned why the U.S.-led coalition was not launching more air strikes on them.
"It's hard not to notice them," Rudskoy said of the lines of trucks shown on satellite images.
Russian officials said their country's bombing campaign had made a significant dent in Islamic State's ability to produce, refine and sell oil.
U.S. officials say coalition air strikes have destroyed hundreds of IS oil trucks while the Russian campaign has mainly targeted opponents of the Syrian government who are not from Islamic State, which is also known as ISIL.
"The irony of the Russians raising this concern is that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that the largest consumer of ISIL oil is actually Bashar al-Assad and his regime, a regime that only remains in place because it is being propped up by the Russians," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
The State Department's Toner said U.S. information was that Islamic State was selling oil at the wellheads to middlemen who were involved in smuggling it across the frontier into Turkey.
SMUGGLING ROUTES
Russian officials described three main routes by which they said oil and oil products were smuggled from Islamic State territory into Turkey.
The ministry said the Western route took oil produced at fields near the Syrian city of Raqqa to the settlement of Azaz on the border with Turkey.
From there the columns of tanker trucks pass through the Turkish town of Reyhanli, the ministry said, citing what it said were satellite pictures of hundreds of such trucks moving through the border crossing without obstruction.
"There is no inspection of the vehicles carried out ... on the Turkish side," said Rudskoy.
Some of the smuggled cargoes go to the Turkish domestic market, while some is exported via the Turkish Mediterranean ports of Iskenderun and Dortyol, the ministry said.
Another main route for smuggled oil, according to the ministry, runs from Deir Ez-zour in Syria to the Syrian border crossing at Al-Qamishli. It said the trucks then took the crude for refining at the Turkish city of Batman.
A third route took oil from eastern Syria and western Iraq into the south-eastern corner of Turkey, the ministry said.
It said its satellite surveillance had captured hundreds of trucks crossing the border in that area back in the summer, and that since then there had been no reduction in the flow.
The defense ministry officials said the information they released on Wednesday was only part of the evidence they have in their possession, and that they would be releasing further intelligence in the next days and weeks.
Yet this was all ok with good old Vlad until one of his planes down shot down.
Now - he's asking all the tough questions the cowardly west refuses to.
I'm all for anything that makes life more difficult for ISIS, just leave out the righteous shit Vlad.
Now - he's asking all the tough questions the cowardly west refuses to.
I'm all for anything that makes life more difficult for ISIS, just leave out the righteous shit Vlad.
The Iraqi forces are doing fine right now, even the army forces are making a lot of progress, and they're close to re-capturing Ramadi. ISIS or Daesh (I agree we should use the name Daesh by the way), haven't made any progress for a long long time in Iraq, and they have been on the receiving end of many resounding defeats lately.
All the Iraqis need from the US is honouring their contracts in term of weapons (/ammunition) sales. Just half of what the US is already selling to the number 1 terrorist state in the world would do (if the US really wants to help).
You mean info like this:
Which now they're trying to deny?
Anyway, killing their "financial officer", or "Jihadi John" or even Baghdadi himself only has propaganda value. On the ground we all know those targeted killings wouldn't make any difference. In my opinion the US main (and by far their best) contribution to the fight against Daesh was preventing Kobane from falling into Daesh hands. It was a job that deserves a lot of credit.
Their second significant contribution was helping to repel Daesh's attack on Erbil after their attack south stalled at Samarra. Those are the actions that deserve mentioning. Jihadi John, "financial officer", or saving 70 hostages (who weren't even Kurds and we still don't know what that was about) aren't really 'achievements' worth mentioning, especially when you're trying to belittle what the Iraqi forces are achieving on the ground right now.
The Shia in Iraq can't be friends with the US because of its alliance with Saudi Arabia, which forces it to be against the Shia. They also don't trust the US after what happened in 1991 (unlike the Kurds, obviously). However in 2003 the Shia in Iraq weren't hostile to the US, and the south was very quiet. It was when the US stayed (much longer than than first advertised) and started to apply pressure on the government forcing it to take unpopular decisions, that many Shia started to have problems with the US, and Iran capitalised on that.
And then when Daesh got closer to Baghdad in 2014 and the US refused to help (forcing the Iraqis to lean heavily on Iran) the US pretty much lost the Shia in Iraq completely (as things stands right now), and now it's very difficult for them to trust the US again. One of the most foolish decisions by Obama was refusing to help the Iraqi government when Daesh got close to Baghdad. It was a big blunder that threw Iraq right into Iran's arms imo.
As for the Sunnis in Iraq, obviously they have a problem with the US because they toppled Saddam in 2003.
Surprised it hasn't been discussed here, but I'm sick knowing the UK is involved in bombing Syria. It comes to a point where you just can't feel exasperation.
The logic is so nonsensical. Let's bomb the shit out of a country and then limit the amount of refugees spilling out from this mess. On top of that, what of the thousand upon thousands innocent men women and children that either can't afford to get away or physically can't. It's fecking ridiculous. David Cameron is a fecking mug. Calling anyone against intervention a 'terrorist sympathiser'. What a stupid thing to say. How did we end up with someone like that leading the nation.
When you have monsters like Bashar getting away with murder, rape, and torture on a daily basis and receiving international protection, and then the wider powers decide to bomb the IS who are holed up in the sparse countryside, and are already retracting due to Kurdish, rebel and Iraq pressure, and becoming more desperate. It just doesn't stack up.
We may aswell get Chilcott to start the enquiry into this. This will only end up with one result, and we'll be here in 10 years time discussing whether it's right to 'go into' Egypt. fecking idiots.
The logic is so nonsensical. Let's bomb the shit out of a country and then limit the amount of refugees spilling out from this mess. On top of that, what of the thousand upon thousands innocent men women and children that either can't afford to get away or physically can't. It's fecking ridiculous. David Cameron is a fecking mug. Calling anyone against intervention a 'terrorist sympathiser'. What a stupid thing to say. How did we end up with someone like that leading the nation.
When you have monsters like Bashar getting away with murder, rape, and torture on a daily basis and receiving international protection, and then the wider powers decide to bomb the IS who are holed up in the sparse countryside, and are already retracting due to Kurdish, rebel and Iraq pressure, and becoming more desperate. It just doesn't stack up.
We may aswell get Chilcott to start the enquiry into this. This will only end up with one result, and we'll be here in 10 years time discussing whether it's right to 'go into' Egypt. fecking idiots.
It's been discussed in the Corbyn thread quite fiercely, but yes it's disgraceful.
How to lose friends and alienate people. Obama's Middle East policy has not been a great success. He found it a City of Marble (or at least standing) and is leaving it a City of Brick (or in ruins).
The odd thing is that his ideas are perfectly logical. With looming American oil self-sufficiency, there's no earthly reason why the US should be fighting wars in the Middle East any more - they no longer have any vital strategic interests in the area. The Europeans should be much more concerned - a high proportion of their energy comes from the region. Yet Obama couldn't avoid getting sucked in, and then conducted the intervention in a half-hearted way calculated to piss everyone off.
How has his policy been responsible for this?
He's basically done everything right in terms of his policy by getting the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan and muting involvement in Libya (allowing the Europeans to take the lead).
Also, this is a good piece from Fawaz Gerges of LSE about how Nouri al-Maliki's sectarian polices allowed ISIS to proliferate in the post US vaccum. Gerges correctly calls this out here http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...aliki-divisive-leadership-window-alqaida-iraq
I almost feel resigned to this.
right wing loons wont be happy until the US is invading one country or another.
Well we are not going in under Obama or Hillary.
Well we are not going in under Obama or Hillary.
It's perfectly feasible that you'll do so under Hillary.
30 minute interview of Assad by Czech Media -
He is as expected, pretty articulate and well spoken (when compared to the retards that rule most of the ME)....and if you ignore his old man was a murdering scumbag and when challenged he more or less did the same - he comes across pretty well and makes decent points. Of course, I am not a Syrian who ran away from Assad's barrel bombs, or a Syrian who was hit with chemical weapons....
Half of what he says is true and the other half delusional lies...lies that every dictator spouts.
I find the Syrian mess quite funny and kind of draw some parallels with Egypt. In a Syria minus Assad and ISIS - you just know, Islamists will win the elections. Syrian population are without doubt more secular and educated than the average Arab middle eastern population...but the moderate and secular parties will get into petty infighting and the Islamists will end up having the end grassroots organization.
I can then imagine them winning like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and ruling in a similar manner....resulting in mass dissatisfaction (though tbf, the MB were never going to be allowed to rule in Egypt - the army and others were plotting and looking for excuses from day 1....funny thing about moderates in the middle east...when they don't win, they aren't so keen on the democratic process!). So this mass dissatisfaction will lead to what?
The Army taking over? A compliant stooge - ala Sisi in Egypt?
Under what circumstances do the Syrian people actually win? Rather than the US-Saudi v Russian-Iranian alliances?
We must also not ignore why some of these nations are willing to spend so much money and man power in Syria - of course it's about regional influence, but also this....
He is as expected, pretty articulate and well spoken (when compared to the retards that rule most of the ME)....and if you ignore his old man was a murdering scumbag and when challenged he more or less did the same - he comes across pretty well and makes decent points. Of course, I am not a Syrian who ran away from Assad's barrel bombs, or a Syrian who was hit with chemical weapons....
Half of what he says is true and the other half delusional lies...lies that every dictator spouts.
I find the Syrian mess quite funny and kind of draw some parallels with Egypt. In a Syria minus Assad and ISIS - you just know, Islamists will win the elections. Syrian population are without doubt more secular and educated than the average Arab middle eastern population...but the moderate and secular parties will get into petty infighting and the Islamists will end up having the end grassroots organization.
I can then imagine them winning like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and ruling in a similar manner....resulting in mass dissatisfaction (though tbf, the MB were never going to be allowed to rule in Egypt - the army and others were plotting and looking for excuses from day 1....funny thing about moderates in the middle east...when they don't win, they aren't so keen on the democratic process!). So this mass dissatisfaction will lead to what?
The Army taking over? A compliant stooge - ala Sisi in Egypt?
Under what circumstances do the Syrian people actually win? Rather than the US-Saudi v Russian-Iranian alliances?
We must also not ignore why some of these nations are willing to spend so much money and man power in Syria - of course it's about regional influence, but also this....
she will not invade. She wants to be a two term President. Even Cruz Munster does not want US troops overseas. The country is sick of war.
Yes. we need to handle terrorism but not get tied up in a long term occupation.
I am also not a huge fan of just random bombings in that area. Obama is being very deliberate...even in this San Bernadino issue...not wanting to get ahead of the FBI investigations.
We need calmness with all the craziness happening.
30 minute interview of Assad by Czech Media -
He is as expected, pretty articulate and well spoken (when compared to the retards that rule most of the ME)....and if you ignore his old man was a murdering scumbag and when challenged he more or less did the same - he comes across pretty well and makes decent points. Of course, I am not a Syrian who ran away from Assad's barrel bombs, or a Syrian who was hit with chemical weapons....
Half of what he says is true and the other half delusional lies...lies that every dictator spouts.
I find the Syrian mess quite funny and kind of draw some parallels with Egypt. In a Syria minus Assad and ISIS - you just know, Islamists will win the elections. Syrian population are without doubt more secular and educated than the average Arab middle eastern population...but the moderate and secular parties will get into petty infighting and the Islamists will end up having the end grassroots organization.
I can then imagine them winning like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and ruling in a similar manner....resulting in mass dissatisfaction (though tbf, the MB were never going to be allowed to rule in Egypt - the army and others were plotting and looking for excuses from day 1....funny thing about moderates in the middle east...when they don't win, they aren't so keen on the democratic process!). So this mass dissatisfaction will lead to what?
The Army taking over? A compliant stooge - ala Sisi in Egypt?
Under what circumstances do the Syrian people actually win? Rather than the US-Saudi v Russian-Iranian alliances?
We must also not ignore why some of these nations are willing to spend so much money and man power in Syria - of course it's about regional influence, but also this....
Regardless of your opinion of him, he's spot on for the most part. Not much in that interview you can rebuke.
I think you're being a bit generous towards her. She probably won't invade any country, but it won't stop her from meddling to indulge the military industrial complex. She's a lot more of a neocon hawk than Obama is. For all his faults, he's probably been your best president in a while, Hilary will be a considerable regression.
The country is moving left. She will moderate too. I just hope the Progressives keep her giving too much away to her buddies in Wall Street.
I think she will be a very good President.
History will see Obama as the best President since JFK. Personally I think he is the best since Jimmy Carter.
Hillary is more hawkish than Obama. Not saying she'll go for a full-blown invasion, but I could see the role of the special forces amped up (which is actually already starting) a la the early stages of the Afghanistan war.
We will not be hands off. Obama or Hillary will do what is needed. As a side note we seeing oil prices drop like a stone here. Hopefully it is a long term strategy to be away from depending on foreign oil and perhaps move towards natural gas in combination with our own reserves.
Then sadly I think you'll be disappointed. She'll just be another establishment shill.
Your only real progressive option is Bernie Sanders.
Bernie and Warren have good support.
'I am still in power because the Syrian people are with me'...Let's be honest when this shit started in Syria, this wasn't about ISIS - this was about him. One cannot ignore he followed the same path of every other dictator when faced with dissent - a violent crackdown.
You see how he speaks of reforms - I bet if he has spoken of these reforms as soon as the protests started years ago...things would look different today. He of course promised reforms when he realized things were getting out of hand...but by then the damage had already been done.
Obviously there's a lot of back peddling and revisionism there to dignify his current position, but he was spot on regarding the fact the West's current stance in all this is a mess. Syria always has been a secular country and should continue to be so, regardless of what Qatari based opposition groups preach.
I think the days of a secular Syria are gone I'm afraid.
He got one thing spot on - the issue isn't about the current generation, but teenagers in Syria in the last 4/5 years. They're growing up in a Syria where, Sunni, Shia, Kurd etc etc are meant to hate each other and must kill the other to survive.
Those divisions do not just go away.
http://syriadirect.org/news/accusat...as-kurds-fear-for-afrin/#.VmBzygtldY0.twitter
Intersting summery that explains what is going on around Afrin.
Intersting summery that explains what is going on around Afrin.
So in Iraq, it's Maliki's fault (who had more problems with the Shia than the Sunnis by the way).
In Syria it's Assad's fault.
In Libya, Europe's fault.
In Yemen, God knows whose fault it is but definitely not the US.
In Egypt, not the US' fault.
In Afghanistan, not the US' fault!
... Not the US fault!
You know very well that's bs though. Terrorism is far more related to the ideology than the circumstances. Look at the Wahhabis in France or anywhere in the world, they're still the same, and doing the same things, regardless if they were ruled by Sisi, or Hollande.
Everybody making excuses for terrorism should be ashamed of himself. It was despicable the way some Western media described the terrorist massacre in Lebanon as "attack against Hezbollah stronghold", or tried to blame Russia for the terrorist attack that killed 224 innocent people on that plane. There is no excuse for terrorism, and if you try to find one, then it will come back and haunt you. There are millions of oppressed people in the world, look at Bahrain for example, which is known there as the "capitol of torture". They're also oppressed people and have to suffer the most despicable acts by the regime. But they didn't turn into terrorists, because oppression doesn't lead to terrorism, a terrorist ideology does.
It's now very clear for everybody where the real problem lies. You can bury your head in the sand as much as you want, pretty much everybody now knows where the problem lies. I'm actually betting deep down, even you do. However, just like Obama, you don't have enough courage to tackle the real problem. Your own allies... That is of course assuming you both have good intentions in the first place when it comes to terrorism.
By the way, if this is how the middle East looks like when Obama (the leader of the most powerful nation in the world) makes all the right decisions, then imagine what would have happened if he made the wrong decisions!