That makes too much sense and may even lead to ISIS being substantially weakened in Syria god forbid. It obviously makes more sense to fund the guys who are on an one-off relationship with ISIS and 'sell' them journalists. Because you know...military industrial complex and Iran.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
That makes too much sense and may even lead to ISIS being substantially weakened in Syria god forbid. It obviously makes more sense to fund the guys who are on an one-off relationship with ISIS and 'sell' them journalists. Because you know...military industrial complex and Iran.
Everything the US would do for Israel is preceived as against the interestes of Arab civilians. As long as the interests of the Arab people is the removal of Israel the US is going to lots of stuff that would piss them off.
"Yes, we can"... be even more clueless than GWB
Erdogan, Obama's regional darling, will dictate who is and who isn't getting armed on his doorstep.
Last edited:
That's a false choice as there are more than two options on the table.
Yeah, one of which was suggested by @Suli. The US has gone for whats probably the second most irresponsibly possible action (first being directly arming ISIS).
You can parrot that line as much as you like and it still won't be true. The US would obviously like to destroy ISIS and get rid of Assad at the same time. Anything less is an unacceptable long term strategy for Syria. If you think the US bombing ISIS in Syria is tantamount to a reprieve for continued tin pot, sectarian dictatorship, then you're dreaming.
Parrot what line? It doesn't take a political scientist to bridge the link between arming Syrian rebels and watching ISIS grow their arsenal. Its become pretty consensual now that arming these people earlier was a bad idea, yet Obama's only gone and done it again.
The US's long-term strategy here seems to be prolonging this war so no side comes out the decisive victor. Its repeating its strategy in the Iran-Iraq war where it supported both sides as they picked off one another.
The interests of most Arab people is self-determination, the very same thing you demand for your own people in every single discussion on the matter in CE. Historically, the US has been antagonistic to this and clearly you agree with this policy. This unsurprisingly only serves to make people more angry.
But as we said, let's leave it there.
Arming the 'moderate rebels'? What a silly course of action.
Wrong again. The US would obviously like to see stable democratic governance in the region to offset extremist/terrorist activity there.
So what's the excuse for not arming YPG? Is it just Turkey, as HR pointed out?
Good one.
Put down the bong and Chomsky literature and you may eventually grasp the basics.
Put down the bong and Chomsky literature and you may eventually grasp the basics.
Don't need any Chomksy or Class A drugs to be reminded of the US's policy when it comes to democracies it 'disagrees' with. Remember Mossadegh, Allende and Lumumba?
We're not talking about history here as Obama clearly has a different policy than Nixon, Eisenhower, and other Presidents from past generations.
So the attempted coup in Ecuador and the support of the of brutal Honduran coup really testaments Obama's benevolent take on foreign policy then does it?
You're naive if you think US foreign policy has altered under his tenure. The US will be starting less stupid wars but covertly its still very much the same, reckless beast its been for the last 60 years.
I truely support Arab self-determination, as long as it is not a determination to remove a neighbour state or resume hostilities.
Obama is an idiot, yes.
Two and a half years... good luck in the meantime.
The Chomsky stuff is really eroding your ability to see things as they are.
Still butthurt over lack of support on the Gaza war I see.
I think Bibi did exceptionally well considering the hostility and incompetence of your administration. Begin didn't get plenty of support either when Saddam's nuclear program was brought to an end. You lot typically need a decade to pull your head out of your arse.
Yeah the so called "hostility" probably had a bit to do with bombing kids into oblivion. How incompetent of Obama.
That was really good, Raoul. How many civilians has he killed with drone attacks since winning that Nobel prize for peace?
That was really good, Raoul. How many civilians has he killed with drone attacks since winning that Nobel prize for peace?
Done with the deflections? Ok good, now back to all the Palestinian kids getting murdered in the name of getting Hamas.
More like long term unstability is good for Israel against the bloodthirsty muslim terrorists.
lol
The irony.
A Yank preaching about counterterrorism measures on 9/11. Not just a Yank, but one who supported the invasion of Iraq.
the irony in that statement truly was magnificent.
Another deflection of the mildly indiscriminate murder of kids. Well done. I see why you may want to make knee jerk comparisons to other situations when the original statement is embarrassing to address.
C'mon Raoul you're more intelligent than that. That's your hollywood script not reality. Do you really believe US want democratic governance in the world ? You guys just want to control the resources, interests and protect Israel's agenda. There are plenty of examples throughout the century which go a long way to show that. You just have to look at South America where EVERY country have been fecked up at one time or another by the US (yesterday for example was the 30th anniversary of Allende's death).
Sorry brother, I just don't see it this way. The U.S is interested in expanding Democratic governance as a means to stabilize global economic markets. Nothing more.
No, the discussion of Gaza is the deflection here as highlighted by your stance in the relevant thread on that issue.
There is no knee jerk element whatsoever in claiming that it's hypocritical for an American to bomb civilians into oblivion in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Yemen and then argue that Israel "murders" civilians when it targets rocket launchers when its own civilian population is under fire.
As I said, you are well aware of that as your posts in that other thread suggest. Such a shame that shaping ME policy according to Tom Friedman's NYT pieces didn't turn out to be any better than following interpretations of the bible. Oh, well...next in line is that bitter old cow.
You're either genuinely oblivious and naive if you believe that or you're echoing your employer's hollow justifications. Since you've got clearly got some smarts I'm going to assume its the latter.
You're way off the mark on both counts as I'm not employed by anyone, nor do I have a partcular dog in the fight. I just see things for what they are. If you look at the core US foreign policy over the past 6 or so years, it has been distinctly about deescalating the excesses of the Bush years. That's not to say the US is going to go into a shell while ISIS, Assad, and others are running rough shot in the middle east. There will always be active efforts to keep a lid on things. The broader policy however, is to expand democratic governance as a means to develop stable economic markets, which unfortunately has manifested itself over the years in a series of half-witted attempts of interventionism, but thankfully that era seems to winding down.
I'm not buying this supposed transition from supporting compliant tyrants to expanding 'democratic governance'. Obama has in the last couple of years attempt to force through a coup in Ecuador to dispose of the democratically elected Correa and is also thought to have played a supporting hand to helping military generals in Honduras overthrow the democratically elected Zelaya as he tried to incorporate Honduras into ALBA. He remained silent on the violent crackdown of peaceful protestors in Bahrain demanding basic democratic rights, and continues to be a friend and ally of the despotic Gulf Arab dictatorships, many of which are through to be covertly funding the likes of ISIS.
The only thing that's changed under his tenure is the US is no longer getting involved in direct military intervention, because unlike Bush he's realised its recklessly silly and also because he longer garners a public mandate for it now the post 9/11 hysteria has mostly worn off.
Look at the scum in that photo. Despotic monarchs, dictators, rapists and bigots. Half of them have probably sanctioned the funding of ISIS and are probably gleefully rubbing their hands now that there's further authorisation to arm 'moderate' rebels.
That's why USA supports neo-nazis in Ukraine, terrorism funding in Saudi Arabia and Qatar who are all but democratic, and of course war criminals like Israel.
Look at the scum in that photo. Despotic monarchs, dictators, rapists and bigots. Half of them have probably sanctioned the funding of ISIS and are probably gleefully rubbing their hands now that there's further authorisation to arm 'moderate' rebels.
Temple merchants.
A brilliant summary of your logic.
Look at the scum in that photo. Despotic monarchs, dictators, rapists and bigots. Half of them have probably sanctioned the funding of ISIS and are probably gleefully rubbing their hands now that there's further authorisation to arm 'moderate' rebels.
Not sectarian at all.