What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The war in Syria (1 Viewer)

Saddam was a mistake, but Gadaffi was a real head scratcher. He was an ally at the time. Still don't understand the rationalization behind that one.
Gaddafi wasn't an ally, :lmao:

We cannot claim to be pro-democracy if we refuse to encourage it by helping to prop up dictators who agree to serve our goals.
I think we can be pro-democracy without actively trying to intervene in the affairs of another country militarily. I think it's different if there is a legitimate democratic movement that has a true chance to govern and the government in place is a direct threat to us. In Libya, I don't see where there was ever any hope of a stable democracy emerging in Libya, so by default leaving it in the hands of Gaddafi was our best option. He also was no threat to the United States. It wasn't too hard to forsee that Libya would dissolve into a free for all and haven for radical militants once Gaddafi was removed. It's the same song, just a different verse. I'm not sure why it would be any different from the other quagmires in the region.
Libya has a democratically elected government. The problem there is that they are being encouraged to share power with Islamists (who control Tripoli) but have so far rejected the deals being pushed on them.

I find it disgusting that Americans would choose a dictator over democracy, even ones that aren't pretty to start off and have issues with radicals.

 
Saddam was a mistake, but Gadaffi was a real head scratcher. He was an ally at the time. Still don't understand the rationalization behind that one.
Gaddafi wasn't an ally, :lmao:

We cannot claim to be pro-democracy if we refuse to encourage it by helping to prop up dictators who agree to serve our goals.
I think we can be pro-democracy without actively trying to intervene in the affairs of another country militarily. I think it's different if there is a legitimate democratic movement that has a true chance to govern and the government in place is a direct threat to us. In Libya, I don't see where there was ever any hope of a stable democracy emerging in Libya, so by default leaving it in the hands of Gaddafi was our best option. He also was no threat to the United States. It wasn't too hard to forsee that Libya would dissolve into a free for all and haven for radical militants once Gaddafi was removed. It's the same song, just a different verse. I'm not sure why it would be any different from the other quagmires in the region.
Libya has a democratically elected government. The problem there is that they are being encouraged to share power with Islamists (who control Tripoli) but have so far rejected the deals being pushed on them.

I find it disgusting that Americans would choose a dictator over democracy, even ones that aren't pretty to start off and have issues with radicals.
Sounds like the U.S. in its infancy.

 
Saddam was a mistake, but Gadaffi was a real head scratcher. He was an ally at the time. Still don't understand the rationalization behind that one.
Gaddafi wasn't an ally, :lmao:

We cannot claim to be pro-democracy if we refuse to encourage it by helping to prop up dictators who agree to serve our goals.
I think we can be pro-democracy without actively trying to intervene in the affairs of another country militarily. I think it's different if there is a legitimate democratic movement that has a true chance to govern and the government in place is a direct threat to us. In Libya, I don't see where there was ever any hope of a stable democracy emerging in Libya, so by default leaving it in the hands of Gaddafi was our best option. He also was no threat to the United States. It wasn't too hard to forsee that Libya would dissolve into a free for all and haven for radical militants once Gaddafi was removed. It's the same song, just a different verse. I'm not sure why it would be any different from the other quagmires in the region.
Libya has a democratically elected government. The problem there is that they are being encouraged to share power with Islamists (who control Tripoli) but have so far rejected the deals being pushed on them.

I find it disgusting that Americans would choose a dictator over democracy, even ones that aren't pretty to start off and have issues with radicals.
Sounds like the U.S. in its infancy.
That's right all radicals have the same beliefs and are of the same intellectual and moral value, great point.

 
West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'Exclusive: Senior negotiator describes rejection of alleged proposal – since which time tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced

Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.

Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.

Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.

But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.

“It was an opportunity lost in 2012,” Ahtisaari said in an interview.

...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside?CMP=share_btn_tw

 
West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'Exclusive: Senior negotiator describes rejection of alleged proposal – since which time tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced

Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.

Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.

Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.

But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.

“It was an opportunity lost in 2012,” Ahtisaari said in an interview.

...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside?CMP=share_btn_tw
It was a trick. :stalker: The west sniffed it out.

Does this Assad guy still wear suits wherever he's holed up at? For a ruthless dictator, he's always well dressed.

 
West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'Exclusive: Senior negotiator describes rejection of alleged proposal – since which time tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced

Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.

Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.

Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.

But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.

“It was an opportunity lost in 2012,” Ahtisaari said in an interview.

...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside?CMP=share_btn_tw
It was a trick. :stalker: The west sniffed it out.

Does this Assad guy still wear suits wherever he's holed up at? For a ruthless dictator, he's always well dressed.
He's a bit of a Michael Corleone, he was going to be an eye doctor in London until his older brother, the Sonny in the family, died in a car "accident."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinai plane crash: Bomb fears prompt Sharm flights suspension

The Russian plane that crashed in Egypt at the weekend "may well have been brought down by an explosive device", Downing Street has said.

All flights between the UK and Sharm el-Sheikh have been suspended on Wednesday evening as UK experts assess security at the Egyptian airport.

Number 10 said flights had been delayed as a "precautionary measure" after "more information has come to light".

Russian Airbus 321 crashed on Saturday, killing all 224 people on board.

"We would underline that this is a precautionary step and we are working closely with the airlines on this approach," a Number 10 spokesman said.

Aviation experts have travelled to Egypt assess security arrangements at the Egyptian airport.

Their findings were considered in a one-hour meeting of the government's Cobra emergency committee, chaired by Prime Minister David Cameron.

A further government statement is expected later tonight.

The Irish Aviation Authority said it has directed Irish airlines not to fly to or from the area until further notice.

'An explosive device'

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said the delays would allow UK experts time to make sure "the right security measures are in place" at Sharm el-Sheikh airport.

"We cannot categorically say why the Russia jet crashed but we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down as a result of an explosive device," he said.

Egypt's President Sisi is currently in the UK and is due to meet Mr Cameron on Thursday. They spoke on Tuesday, before Downing Street released its statement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now the question is what is Putin's next move? Somehow I don't see him backing down and tucking tail and running.
This is a very big deal.

First of all the US is confirming it.

Also - keep in mind the Moscow apartment bombings, the link to Putin and also even if not Putin the effect it had on the country.

 
What Benjamin Netanyahu Said About Syria Might Surprise YouNovember 10, 2015 By The Federalist Staff

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu received the Irving Kristol award at a gala hosted by the American Enterprise Institute last night in Washington, D.C., and he had an interesting response to a question from AEI’s Danielle Pletka on the argument between those who favor democracy and those who suggest the need for secular dictators to avoid chaos.

Pletka asked: “There are plenty of voices, I would say growing in volume both in the U.S. and I think even in Israel, who would suggest that we are better off with the Gaddafis and the Saddams and the Assads in place to tamp down on the Islamists who rise up, and that secular dictatorship is really the solution we should look for the in the rest of the Middle East. Others say that democracy is only fertile ground for Islamists, who will rise up. Where do you come down on that?”

Netanyahu responded: “Well, when I went to serve in the United Nations 100 years ago, as Israel’s ambassador, there was a woman there, her name was Jeane Kirkpatrick [applause] and I had read an article that she had written called “Dictatorships and Double Standards.” And she said, basically, in this article, she said: “We are committed to the larger battle against Soviet totalitarianism and on occasion we decide, for the larger goal, to make arrangements with secular dictatorships.” That’s basically what she said.

“Now mind you, Saddam was a horrible, horrible, brutal killer, so was Gaddafi, there’s no question about that. I had my own dealings with each of them. But I do want to say that they were, in many ways, neighborhood bullies. That is, they tormented their immediate environment but they were not wedded to a larger goal.

“The militant Islamists, either Iran leading the militant Shiites with their proxies, Hezbollah and Islamic jihad and Hamas, even though Hamas is a Sunni… Or the militant Sunnis led by Daesh—by ISIS—they have a larger goal in mind. Their goal is not merely the conquest of the Middle East, it’s the conquest of the world.

“It’s unbelievable, people don’t believe that. They don’t believe that it’s possible to have this quest for an imamate or a caliphate in the 21st century, but that is exactly what is guiding them. And against this larger threat that would present two Islamic states. One, the Islamic state of Daesh, and the other the Islamic Republic of Iran, each one of them is seeking to arm themselves with weapons of mass death. Chemical weapons in the case of ISIS, nuclear weapons in the case of Iran. That poses a formidable threat to our world.

“Therefore, if I have to categorize the threats, I would say that these are the larger threats. Doesn’t mean you have to form alliances with secular dictatorships, it means you have to categorize ‘what is the larger threat?’ And that is something that I think is required from all of us. Political leadership involves always choosing between bad and worse. I seldom have had a choice between bad and good. I welcome it when it happens, but these are by far the easiest choices. It’s choosing between bad and worse that defines a good part of leadership, and I think I know how to choose that.”

On Syria, Netanyahu Says “Don’t Intervene” When Enemies FightingPletka then shifted to Syria, to which Netanyahu offered this response: “If I see a problem, a situation where I don’t have a clear concept, I don’t charge in. In Syria, I do not see a simple concept. Because you choose here between a horrible secular dictatorship, or the two other prospects, that would be buttressed by Iran, that would have Iran run Syria – a horrible prospect for us – or Daesh, which is also there touching on our borders in Golan. When two of your enemies are fighting each other, I don’t say strengthen one or the other, I say weaken both, or at least don’t intervene – which is what I’ve done. I have not intervened.
“I have acted, several years ago, and I think I was the first country to do that, to put a military hospital 10 yards away from our border with the Golan — with Syria — and we’ve taken in thousands of Syrians, children, women, men, amputated, horrible conditions, and given them treatment in Israeli hospitals. We never show their picture, because if their photograph is seen and they are then rehabilitated and they go back to their villages or towns they will be executed on the spot. Other than that, I’ve left the internal battle in Syria untouched because I’m not sure what to choose, and you have to openly admit it.

“But here’s what I do define in Syria: I don’t want Syria to be used as a launching ground for attacks against us. And I have said this to Vladimir Putin when I flew to Moscow to see him – I went to see him first to see that our planes don’t crash at each other, it’s not a good idea. But I told him, here’s what we do in Syria: we will not allow Iran to set up a second front in the Golan. And we will act forcefully, and have acted forcefully, to prevent that. [Applause] We will not allow the use of Syrian territory, from which we would be attacked by the Syrian army or anyone else, and we have acted forcefully against that. And third, we will not allow the use of Syrian territory for the transfer of game changing weapons into Lebanon into Hezbollah’s hands, and we have acted forcefully on that.

“I made it clear that we will continue to act that way. I explained it to Putin: ‘Whatever your goals are in Syria, these are our goals, and we will, continue to act that way.’ And I think that message was received. Now there is talk now of an arrangement in Syria, and I spoke about it today in a very good conversation I had with President Obama. And I said that any arrangement that is struck in Syria – if one is achievable, I’m not sure, I’m not sure Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again. I have strong doubts—I’m not sure Syria as a state can be reconstituted. But whatever arrangements are made in Syria, they do not preclude Iran from continuing its’ aggression against us directly, or by transferring weapons to Hezbollah, that doesn’t oblige us.

“We have very clear policy demands in Syria. We keep them and we’ll continue to keep them. The defense of Israel is what concerns me in Syria, first and and foremost, and on that we will continue to act forcefully.”

 
“Now mind you, Saddam was a horrible, horrible, brutal killer, so was Gaddafi, there’s no question about that. I had my own dealings with each of them. But I do want to say that they were, in many ways, neighborhood bullies. That is, they tormented their immediate environment but they were not wedded to a larger goal.

“The militant Islamists, either Iran leading the militant Shiites with their proxies, Hezbollah and Islamic jihad and Hamas, even though Hamas is a Sunni… Or the militant Sunnis led by Daesh—by ISIS—they have a larger goal in mind. Their goal is not merely the conquest of the Middle East, it’s the conquest of the world.

“It’s unbelievable, people don’t believe that. They don’t believe that it’s possible to have this quest for an imamate or a caliphate in the 21st century, but that is exactly what is guiding them. And against this larger threat that would present two Islamic states. One, the Islamic state of Daesh, and the other the Islamic Republic of Iran, each one of them is seeking to arm themselves with weapons of mass death. Chemical weapons in the case of ISIS, nuclear weapons in the case of Iran. That poses a formidable threat to our world.

“Therefore, if I have to categorize the threats, I would say that these are the larger threats. Doesn’t mean you have to form alliances with secular dictatorships, it means you have to categorize ‘what is the larger threat?’ And that is something that I think is required from all of us. Political leadership involves always choosing between bad and worse. I seldom have had a choice between bad and good. I welcome it when it happens, but these are by far the easiest choices. It’s choosing between bad and worse that defines a good part of leadership, and I think I know how to choose that.”

...
Sounds to me like he preferred the neighborhood bullies.

However Kirkpatrick was likely talking about containing Soviet and communist expansion, whereas I really wonder before 1995 or so how often it was put at the highest levels that the Pan Arabists and Baathists were actually a bulwark against islamism.

 
Here's a question: as we know we were probably looking at a 50 year commitment in some form of staying in Iraq if we had stuck with the original plan.

How long will Russia stay in Syria?

 
jonessed said:
Here's a question: as we know we were probably looking at a 50 year commitment in some form of staying in Iraq if we had stuck with the original plan.

How long will Russia stay in Syria?
Until Assad regains control.
And as long as it takes for he and his heirs to retain it.
Yeah, I edited it. I think they will have a base of operations there for decades. No reason not to.

 
[SIZE=14pt][/SIZE]President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning.

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria. President Putin (bad, as he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So, a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except Corbyn who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that mad ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (doh!).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

This should clear it all up for you.
[SIZE=14pt][/SIZE]Just so you know - I am not taking any questions on this subject

Credit.. some spam email.


 
I liked that, thanks for posting Matuski.
I liked it too. Summed up the millenia old cluster that is the ME. It always gets over simplified, but there are always multiple factions at play making it very complex and highly improbable that it will ever be "solved".

It will always come down to the "less bad" option.

Hard to do nothing, but stupid to go all in... as the result will be more or less the same. Remove a bad, but understand another bad flows into the vacuum left behind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So am I to understand that Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet that was firing on oil pipelines that Turkey was using in order to buy oil directly from ISIS...has anyone heard this or is it even remotely true?

Isn't Turkey an American ally?

Don't get hostile just enlighten me, thanks.

 
So am I to understand that Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet that was firing on oil pipelines that Turkey was using in order to buy oil directly from ISIS...has anyone heard this or is it even remotely true?

Isn't Turkey an American ally?

Don't get hostile just enlighten me, thanks.
Where did you get this idea from?

 
So am I to understand that Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet that was firing on oil pipelines that Turkey was using in order to buy oil directly from ISIS...has anyone heard this or is it even remotely true?

Isn't Turkey an American ally?

Don't get hostile just enlighten me, thanks.
Where did you get this idea from?
I have a goofy friend and we talk from time to time.

ISIS would not exist without a lot of moolah and it seems like they are making a lot on oil they sell so it would stand to reason if Turkey was buying oil from ISIS which I wouldn't put past that country, it would be a reasonable assumption if Russia is fighting ISIS and wanted to take away their $$$ pipeline especially after they blew up a passenger jet killing 224 a month or so ago. Russia is supposed to be taking on ISIS in Syria so it isn't so far fetched. And then if true and Turkey is an American ally, sounds kind of messy.

 
So am I to understand that Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet that was firing on oil pipelines that Turkey was using in order to buy oil directly from ISIS...has anyone heard this or is it even remotely true?

Isn't Turkey an American ally?

Don't get hostile just enlighten me, thanks.
Where did you get this idea from?
I have a goofy friend and we talk from time to time.ISIS would not exist without a lot of moolah and it seems like they are making a lot on oil they sell so it would stand to reason if Turkey was buying oil from ISIS which I wouldn't put past that country, it would be a reasonable assumption if Russia is fighting ISIS and wanted to take away their $$$ pipeline especially after they blew up a passenger jet killing 224 a month or so ago. Russia is supposed to be taking on ISIS in Syria so it isn't so far fetched. And then if true and Turkey is an American ally, sounds kind of messy.
They've been accused of getting oil from ISIS

They claim innocence (of course)!

They also bombed th Kurds

They haven't been the most steadfast of allies....

 
So am I to understand that Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet that was firing on oil pipelines that Turkey was using in order to buy oil directly from ISIS...has anyone heard this or is it even remotely true?

Isn't Turkey an American ally?

Don't get hostile just enlighten me, thanks.
Where did you get this idea from?
I have a goofy friend and we talk from time to time.ISIS would not exist without a lot of moolah and it seems like they are making a lot on oil they sell so it would stand to reason if Turkey was buying oil from ISIS which I wouldn't put past that country, it would be a reasonable assumption if Russia is fighting ISIS and wanted to take away their $$$ pipeline especially after they blew up a passenger jet killing 224 a month or so ago. Russia is supposed to be taking on ISIS in Syria so it isn't so far fetched. And then if true and Turkey is an American ally, sounds kind of messy.
They've been accused of getting oil from ISIS

They claim innocence (of course)!

They also bombed th Kurds

They haven't been the most steadfast of allies....
They have their own agenda, as do anyone else in the region

 
Assad can stay, for now: Kerry accepts Russian stanceMOSCOW (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday accepted Russia's long-standing demand that President Bashar Assad's future be determined by his own people, as Washington and Moscow edged toward putting aside years of disagreement over how to end Syria's civil war.

"The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change," Kerry told reporters in the Russian capital after meeting President Vladimir Putin. A major international conference on Syria would take place later this week in New York, Kerry announced.

Kerry reiterated the U.S. position that Assad, accused by the West of massive human rights violations and chemical weapons attacks, won't be able to steer Syria out of more than four years of conflict.


But after a day of discussions with Assad's key international backer, Kerry said the focus now is "not on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about Assad." Rather, it is on facilitating a peace process in which "Syrians will be making decisions for the future of Syria."


Kerry's declarations crystallized the evolution in U.S. policy on Assad over the last several months, as the Islamic State group's growing influence in the Middle East has taken priority.

President Barack Obama first called on Assad to leave power in the summer of 2011, with "Assad must go" being a consistent rallying cry. Later, American officials allowed that he wouldn't have to resign on "Day One" of a transition. Now, no one can say when Assad might step down.

Russia, by contrast, has remained consistent in its view that no foreign government could demand Assad's departure and that Syrians would have to negotiate matters of leadership among themselves. Since late September, it has been bombing terrorist and rebel targets in Syria as part of what the West says is an effort to prop up Assad's government.

"No one should be forced to choose between a dictator and being plagued by terrorists," Kerry said. However, he described the Syrian opposition's demand that Assad must leave as soon as peace talks begin as a "nonstarting position, obviously."

Earlier Tuesday in the Kremlin, Putin noted several "outstanding issues" between Russia and its former Cold War foe. Beyond Assad, these include which rebel groups in Syria should be allowed to participate in the transition process and which should be deemed terrorists, and like the Islamic State group and al-Qaida, combatted by all.

Jordan is working on finalizing the list of terrorist vs. legitimate opposition forces. Representatives of Syria's opposition themselves hope this week to finalize their negotiating team for talks with Assad's government. The U.S., Russia and others hope those talks will begin early next year.

Appearing beside Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hailed what he described as a "big negotiating day," saying the sides advanced efforts to define what a Syrian transition process might look like.

The two countries also have split on Ukraine since Russia's annexation of the Crimea region last year and its ongoing, though diminished, support for separatist rebels in the east of the country. The U.S. has pressed severe economic sanctions against Russia in response and has insisted that Moscow's actions have left it isolated.

That wasn't the case on Tuesday.

"We don't seek to isolate Russia as a matter of policy, no," Kerry said. The sooner Russia implements a February cease-fire that calls for withdrawal of Russian forces and materiel and a release of all prisoners, he said, the sooner that "sanctions can be rolled back."

The world is better off when Russia and the U.S. work together, he added, calling Obama and Putin's current cooperation a "sign of maturity."

"There is no policy of the United States, per se, to isolate Russia," Kerry stressed.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ed88e4c5d57341eba365a966300f67e3/kerry-moscow-talks-syria-ukraine?utm_content=bufferd162a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

- WHAT the :censored: have we been doing since 2013?????

WHAT the hell was Obama speech in front of national TV about liek a week ago?

Why the hell did Obama ask for an AUMF against Assad?

How many Syrians have we been killing for what, exactly?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
100,000 Syrians have quietly made it into America since 2012 under Barack Obama's watch. For anyone who doubts that figure or might have missed it...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/as-lawmakers-clash-over-refugees-syrian-immigration-quietly-tops-100000-since/?intcmp=hpbt1
How many Syrians have we killed to take out Assad?
The United States? I'm not tracking what you mean, sorry.
The US has been funding rebels to take out Assad since 2013, yes?

How many Syrians have died as part of our effort to take out Assad?

 
100,000 Syrians have quietly made it into America since 2012 under Barack Obama's watch. For anyone who doubts that figure or might have missed it...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/as-lawmakers-clash-over-refugees-syrian-immigration-quietly-tops-100000-since/?intcmp=hpbt1
The answer is clear, we just need a bigger security service. Grow grow grow that bureaucracy.
Hire 1,000 people and give them each 100 names with the best known addresses and start knocking on doors to make sure they are well assimilated to life in the United States.

 
100,000 Syrians have quietly made it into America since 2012 under Barack Obama's watch. For anyone who doubts that figure or might have missed it...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/as-lawmakers-clash-over-refugees-syrian-immigration-quietly-tops-100000-since/?intcmp=hpbt1
How many Syrians have we killed to take out Assad?
The United States? I'm not tracking what you mean, sorry.
The US has been funding rebels to take out Assad since 2013, yes?

How many Syrians have died as part of our effort to take out Assad?
My goof I see what you mean. Yeah...I don't know those numbers off the top of my head.

 
100,000 Syrians have quietly made it into America since 2012 under Barack Obama's watch. For anyone who doubts that figure or might have missed it...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/as-lawmakers-clash-over-refugees-syrian-immigration-quietly-tops-100000-since/?intcmp=hpbt1
How many Syrians have we killed to take out Assad?
The United States? I'm not tracking what you mean, sorry.
The US has been funding rebels to take out Assad since 2013, yes?

How many Syrians have died as part of our effort to take out Assad?
My goof I see what you mean. Yeah...I don't know those numbers off the top of my head.
My guess is it's the thousands.

Can you imagine if the Congress had granted his request for an AUMF? Crazy.

 
100,000 Syrians have quietly made it into America since 2012 under Barack Obama's watch. For anyone who doubts that figure or might have missed it...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/as-lawmakers-clash-over-refugees-syrian-immigration-quietly-tops-100000-since/?intcmp=hpbt1
Comments are money:

texanholdum 23 minutes agoTELL ME ? JUST HOW MUCH ,ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT UP WITH FROM THIS BOGUS PRESIDENT ??? I MEAN COME ON ! HE HAS DONE JUST ABOUT EVERY THING HE CAN TO DIVIDE US. RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, SATANISM, DEVIL WORSHIP . HE HAS LEFT NO STONE UN TURNED. AND YOU PEOPLE STILL ADORE HIM . WHY ???? HAVE YOU BEEN REWARDED ? ARE YOU WORKING LESS HOURS ? BETTER HEALTH CARE ? BETTER RETIREMENT? HAVE YOU FOUND THE MYTHICAL RAINBOW , WITH A POT OF GOLD ? OH I SEE , YOUR LOOKING FOR REPARATIONS FROM SLAVERY.
 
Assad can stay, for now: Kerry accepts Russian stanceMOSCOW (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday accepted Russia's long-standing demand that President Bashar Assad's future be determined by his own people, as Washington and Moscow edged toward putting aside years of disagreement over how to end Syria's civil war.

"The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change," Kerry told reporters in the Russian capital after meeting President Vladimir Putin. A major international conference on Syria would take place later this week in New York, Kerry announced.

Kerry reiterated the U.S. position that Assad, accused by the West of massive human rights violations and chemical weapons attacks, won't be able to steer Syria out of more than four years of conflict.


But after a day of discussions with Assad's key international backer, Kerry said the focus now is "not on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about Assad." Rather, it is on facilitating a peace process in which "Syrians will be making decisions for the future of Syria."


Kerry's declarations crystallized the evolution in U.S. policy on Assad over the last several months, as the Islamic State group's growing influence in the Middle East has taken priority.

President Barack Obama first called on Assad to leave power in the summer of 2011, with "Assad must go" being a consistent rallying cry. Later, American officials allowed that he wouldn't have to resign on "Day One" of a transition. Now, no one can say when Assad might step down.

Russia, by contrast, has remained consistent in its view that no foreign government could demand Assad's departure and that Syrians would have to negotiate matters of leadership among themselves. Since late September, it has been bombing terrorist and rebel targets in Syria as part of what the West says is an effort to prop up Assad's government.

"No one should be forced to choose between a dictator and being plagued by terrorists," Kerry said. However, he described the Syrian opposition's demand that Assad must leave as soon as peace talks begin as a "nonstarting position, obviously."

Earlier Tuesday in the Kremlin, Putin noted several "outstanding issues" between Russia and its former Cold War foe. Beyond Assad, these include which rebel groups in Syria should be allowed to participate in the transition process and which should be deemed terrorists, and like the Islamic State group and al-Qaida, combatted by all.

Jordan is working on finalizing the list of terrorist vs. legitimate opposition forces. Representatives of Syria's opposition themselves hope this week to finalize their negotiating team for talks with Assad's government. The U.S., Russia and others hope those talks will begin early next year.

Appearing beside Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hailed what he described as a "big negotiating day," saying the sides advanced efforts to define what a Syrian transition process might look like.

The two countries also have split on Ukraine since Russia's annexation of the Crimea region last year and its ongoing, though diminished, support for separatist rebels in the east of the country. The U.S. has pressed severe economic sanctions against Russia in response and has insisted that Moscow's actions have left it isolated.

That wasn't the case on Tuesday.

"We don't seek to isolate Russia as a matter of policy, no," Kerry said. The sooner Russia implements a February cease-fire that calls for withdrawal of Russian forces and materiel and a release of all prisoners, he said, the sooner that "sanctions can be rolled back."

The world is better off when Russia and the U.S. work together, he added, calling Obama and Putin's current cooperation a "sign of maturity."

"There is no policy of the United States, per se, to isolate Russia," Kerry stressed.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ed88e4c5d57341eba365a966300f67e3/kerry-moscow-talks-syria-ukraine?utm_content=bufferd162a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

- WHAT the :censored: have we been doing since 2013?????

WHAT the hell was Obama speech in front of national TV about liek a week ago?

Why the hell did Obama ask for an AUMF against Assad?

How many Syrians have we been killing for what, exactly?
Pathetic

 
Assad can stay, for now: Kerry accepts Russian stance

MOSCOW (AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday accepted Russia's long-standing demand that President Bashar Assad's future be determined by his own people, as Washington and Moscow edged toward putting aside years of disagreement over how to end Syria's civil war.

"The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change," Kerry told reporters in the Russian capital after meeting President Vladimir Putin. A major international conference on Syria would take place later this week in New York, Kerry announced.

Kerry reiterated the U.S. position that Assad, accused by the West of massive human rights violations and chemical weapons attacks, won't be able to steer Syria out of more than four years of conflict.

But after a day of discussions with Assad's key international backer, Kerry said the focus now is "not on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about Assad." Rather, it is on facilitating a peace process in which "Syrians will be making decisions for the future of Syria."

Kerry's declarations crystallized the evolution in U.S. policy on Assad over the last several months, as the Islamic State group's growing influence in the Middle East has taken priority.

President Barack Obama first called on Assad to leave power in the summer of 2011, with "Assad must go" being a consistent rallying cry. Later, American officials allowed that he wouldn't have to resign on "Day One" of a transition. Now, no one can say when Assad might step down.

Russia, by contrast, has remained consistent in its view that no foreign government could demand Assad's departure and that Syrians would have to negotiate matters of leadership among themselves. Since late September, it has been bombing terrorist and rebel targets in Syria as part of what the West says is an effort to prop up Assad's government.

"No one should be forced to choose between a dictator and being plagued by terrorists," Kerry said. However, he described the Syrian opposition's demand that Assad must leave as soon as peace talks begin as a "nonstarting position, obviously."

Earlier Tuesday in the Kremlin, Putin noted several "outstanding issues" between Russia and its former Cold War foe. Beyond Assad, these include which rebel groups in Syria should be allowed to participate in the transition process and which should be deemed terrorists, and like the Islamic State group and al-Qaida, combatted by all.

Jordan is working on finalizing the list of terrorist vs. legitimate opposition forces. Representatives of Syria's opposition themselves hope this week to finalize their negotiating team for talks with Assad's government. The U.S., Russia and others hope those talks will begin early next year.

Appearing beside Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hailed what he described as a "big negotiating day," saying the sides advanced efforts to define what a Syrian transition process might look like.

The two countries also have split on Ukraine since Russia's annexation of the Crimea region last year and its ongoing, though diminished, support for separatist rebels in the east of the country. The U.S. has pressed severe economic sanctions against Russia in response and has insisted that Moscow's actions have left it isolated.

That wasn't the case on Tuesday.

"We don't seek to isolate Russia as a matter of policy, no," Kerry said. The sooner Russia implements a February cease-fire that calls for withdrawal of Russian forces and materiel and a release of all prisoners, he said, the sooner that "sanctions can be rolled back."

The world is better off when Russia and the U.S. work together, he added, calling Obama and Putin's current cooperation a "sign of maturity."

"There is no policy of the United States, per se, to isolate Russia," Kerry stressed.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ed88e4c5d57341eba365a966300f67e3/kerry-moscow-talks-syria-ukraine?utm_content=bufferd162a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer- WHAT the :censored: have we been doing since 2013?????

WHAT the hell was Obama speech in front of national TV about liek a week ago?

Why the hell did Obama ask for an AUMF against Assad?

How many Syrians have we been killing for what, exactly?
Pathetic
Never saw ISIS, then underestimated them. Then got ##### slapped by the Russians. Then acquiesced to Putin and said 'Sure buddy. You take the lead here.'Oops.

 
Things changed when Russia jumped in and as ISIS continued to become more problematic. :shrug:
We should never have gotten involved in Syria in the first place. Had we maintained a presence in Iraq, we might have been able to prevent ISIS from gaining the military power they were able to.

 
jamny said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Things changed when Russia jumped in and as ISIS continued to become more problematic. :shrug:
We should never have gotten involved in Syria in the first place. Had we maintained a presence in Iraq, we might have been able to prevent ISIS from gaining the military power they were able to.
We could have at least stopped them from going over the border into Iraq and taking all of the US weapons and equipment left behind

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jamny said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Things changed when Russia jumped in and as ISIS continued to become more problematic. :shrug:
We should never have gotten involved in Syria in the first place. Had we maintained a presence in Iraq, we might have been able to prevent ISIS from gaining the military power they were able to.
We could have at least stopped them from going over the border into Iraq and taking all of the US weapons and equipment left behind
That's what I meant. :thumbup:

 
jamny said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Things changed when Russia jumped in and as ISIS continued to become more problematic. :shrug:
We should never have gotten involved in Syria in the first place. Had we maintained a presence in Iraq, we might have been able to prevent ISIS from gaining the military power they were able to.
We should never have been in Iraq.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jamny said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Things changed when Russia jumped in and as ISIS continued to become more problematic. :shrug:
We should never have gotten involved in Syria in the first place. Had we maintained a presence in Iraq, we might have been able to prevent ISIS from gaining the military power they were able to.
We should never have been in Iraq.
OK, but we were.

 
100,000 Syrians have quietly made it into America since 2012 under Barack Obama's watch. For anyone who doubts that figure or might have missed it...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/as-lawmakers-clash-over-refugees-syrian-immigration-quietly-tops-100000-since/?intcmp=hpbt1
Comments are money:

texanholdum 23 minutes ago

TELL ME ? JUST HOW MUCH ,ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT UP WITH FROM THIS BOGUS PRESIDENT ??? I MEAN COME ON ! HE HAS DONE JUST ABOUT EVERY THING HE CAN TO DIVIDE US. RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, SATANISM, DEVIL WORSHIP . HE HAS LEFT NO STONE UN TURNED. AND YOU PEOPLE STILL ADORE HIM . WHY ???? HAVE YOU BEEN REWARDED ? ARE YOU WORKING LESS HOURS ? BETTER HEALTH CARE ? BETTER RETIREMENT? HAVE YOU FOUND THE MYTHICAL RAINBOW , WITH A POT OF GOLD ? OH I SEE , YOUR LOOKING FOR REPARATIONS FROM SLAVERY.
:lmao:

I hope that guy is trolling, he is going to give himself an aneurism if he goes about his day thinking that kind of nonsense.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top