Syria,Iraq, and ISIS

[Bush92]

Back in August of last year, the Obama administration was drawing a red line on Syria and wanting to bomb Syrian Army positions. Even "War on the Brain" McCain was pushing for this. Had we helped topple Assad last year, we can now have insight into the bloodshed that would have followed because of ISIS actions in Iraq. Neo Con theory calls for toppling these dictators and monarchs of the North Africa, Middle East and West Asia and thus democracy will follow. Idea was to give opposition groups in those nations an alternative to joining Islamic Extremist organizations. Instead what we have seen is the removal of Saddam has brought civil war and ISIS into Iraq. The Arab Spring has brought the Islamic Brotherhood to power in many of those countries. Now Obama administration is contemplating bombing ISIS in Syria. Assad must be laughing right now. What our next move? Do we now support Assad "the gasser" in order to fight ISIS? Has the Neo-Con approach been a failure? Under this approach we would need to keep large numbers of US troops engaged in that region indefinitely at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have. What's the next move on ISIS and what's the United States long term goals in this region of the world?

 

[waltky]

How two-faced ya wanna get here?...

Syria Urges International Help in Fighting Islamic State
August 25, 2014 — Following the fall of a major Syrian government air base to Islamic State militants Sunday, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem is urging the international community to cooperate with his government and demanding that neighboring states stop their alleged support for the jihadist group.

The veteran Syrian foreign minister made his first major appearance since returning to work after a heart operation several months ago. His tone was conciliatory and he told the Damascus press corps that Syria is seeking international cooperation to combat Islamic State militants. "My government is ready to cooperate and coordinate both regionally and internationally to fight terrorism.....if respect is given to Syrian sovereignty and independence, since the Syrian government 'represents the country's sovereignty,'" said al-Moallem. Moallem went on to argue that Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusrat militants are more dangerous than the Taliban or al-Qaida, which the U.S. and NATO have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001. He calls it ironic that the United States has been trying to weaken the Syrian government and its military, while claiming to want to fight terrorism.

Moallem insisted his government would “not accept unilateral U.S.” attacks on Islamic State militants on Syrian soil, but stopped short of saying that Syrian forces would try to shoot down U.S. planes if they enter Syrian air space. He accused both Qatar and Turkey of supporting the militants. The Syrian government plea for cooperation came a day after Islamic State militants captured a long besieged air base near the northern provincial capital of Raqqa. Amateur video showed the militants chanting “Allahu Akbar” and shooting their weapons in the air to celebrate. The group posted gruesome photos on the Internet showing members parading the severed heads of government soldiers on pikes inside the city. Its combatants are reported to be close to two other major government air bases outside of Hama and Deir ez Zor.

Territory within Syria and Iraq, ISIL’s Planned Islamic State

Hilal Khashan, who teaches political science at the American University of Beirut, says that the militants' capture of the air base and the West's sudden eagerness to stop Islamic State from spreading farther may help Damascus shed its pariah state image. "For months and months, the regime in Damascus has been talking about the fact that they were in the forefront in the fight against global terrorism and the latest advances of ISIS in Iraq and their takeover yesterday of Tabqa air base sends yet another message to the international community that 'we are in one trench against our joint enemy.' So, whether they admit it or not, I believe the West will seek to cooperate with the regime in Damascus, even if discreetly," said Khashan.

Joshua Landis, who heads the Middle East Studies Department at the University of Oklahoma, however, says he thinks there is “little possibility in Washington of a formal alliance or cooperation of any sort” with the Assad regime. He says that “most military experts in Washington are calling for something akin to 'mowing the lawn,' as we just witnessed Israel do to Hamas in Gaza.” He believes that U.S. authorities want to "kill and disrupt IS concentrations and leaders in Syria [but] without partnering with [either the rebels or the Syrian regime].........to take over IS-held territory.”

Syria Urges International Help in Fighting Islamic State

See also:

Syria warns US: No unilateral strikes on militants
Aug 25,`14 -- Syria said Monday it was ready to help confront the rising threat from the Islamic State group, but warned the United States against carrying out airstrikes without Damascus' consent, saying any such attack would be considered an aggression.

In seeking to portray itself as a partner for the international community, Syria seemed intent on capitalizing on the growing clamor among some U.S. officials, including military leaders, to expand the current American air campaign against the Islamic extremists in Iraq and to hit them in Syria as well. President Barack Obama has long been wary of getting dragged into the bloody and complex Syrian civil war that the United Nations says has killed more than 190,000 people. He has resisted intervening militarily in the conflict, even after a deadly chemical weapons attack a year ago that Washington blamed on President Bashar Assad's government.

But the extremist group's rampage across wide swaths of Iraq, declaration of a state governed by their harsh interpretation of Islamic law in territory spanning the Iraq-Syria border, and grisly beheading of an American journalist, have injected a new dynamic into those calculations. Now, Obama faces pressure from his own military leaders to go after the extremists inside Syria. On Monday, a senior administration official said Obama authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a move that could pave the way for U.S. airstrikes. The official who confirmed the decision was not authorized to discuss Obama's decision publicly by name, and insisted on anonymity.

Speaking in Damascus, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem appeared acutely aware of how much has changed since last August, when the U.S. was threatening to carry out punitive airstrikes against Assad's government in the wake of the chemical attack. Since then, global disapproval has shifted away from Assad and toward the Islamic extremists who are fighting him and spreading destruction across Syria and Iraq. Al-Moallem told reporters his government is ready "to cooperate and coordinate" with any side, including the U.S., or join any regional or international alliance against the Islamic State group. But he said any military action inside Syria should be coordinated with the Syrian government. "Any strike which is not coordinated with the government will be considered as aggression," he said.

He said Damascus has warned repeatedly of the threat of terrorism and the need to cut off resources and funding, but "no one listened to us." Syria's government has long described the rebels fighting to topple Assad as "terrorists" in a foreign conspiracy.

MORE

 

[AntiParty]

Back in August of last year, the Obama administration was drawing a red line on Syria and wanting to bomb Syrian Army positions. Even "War on the Brain" McCain was pushing for this. Had we helped topple Assad last year, we can now have insight into the bloodshed that would have followed because of ISIS actions in Iraq. Neo Con theory calls for toppling these dictators and monarchs of the North Africa, Middle East and West Asia and thus democracy will follow. Idea was to give opposition groups in those nations an alternative to joining Islamic Extremist organizations. Instead what we have seen is the removal of Saddam has brought civil war and ISIS into Iraq. The Arab Spring has brought the Islamic Brotherhood to power in many of those countries. Now Obama administration is contemplating bombing ISIS in Syria. Assad must be laughing right now. What our next move? Do we now support Assad "the gasser" in order to fight ISIS? Has the Neo-Con approach been a failure? Under this approach we would need to keep large numbers of US troops engaged in that region indefinitely at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have. What's the next move on ISIS and what's the United States long term goals in this region of the world?

Obama really let down Lockheed Martin when he didn't pull the trigger on war with Syria. Guessing the Military Industrial Complex won't donate as much to the Left next time.

Meanwhile, watching the Right Wing media say Obama is weak for not going to war with Syria while also stating they would not have, is ironically epic. (because Fox News is stupid, not Right Wingers........unless they quote and follow it)

To understand Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and others, you have to understand the "Petrol Dollar". You also can research any media outside of USA and see that Benghazi was a CIA gun running station for Libya and Syria. The only people in the world confused about Benghazi are Americans. You can also see Syrian and Libyan rebels use brand new American weapons and ammo to overturn their Country.............Classic CIA coup.

 

[Discombobulated]

Back in August of last year, the Obama administration was drawing a red line on Syria and wanting to bomb Syrian Army positions. Even "War on the Brain" McCain was pushing for this. Had we helped topple Assad last year, we can now have insight into the bloodshed that would have followed because of ISIS actions in Iraq. Neo Con theory calls for toppling these dictators and monarchs of the North Africa, Middle East and West Asia and thus democracy will follow. Idea was to give opposition groups in those nations an alternative to joining Islamic Extremist organizations. Instead what we have seen is the removal of Saddam has brought civil war and ISIS into Iraq. The Arab Spring has brought the Islamic Brotherhood to power in many of those countries. Now Obama administration is contemplating bombing ISIS in Syria. Assad must be laughing right now. What our next move? Do we now support Assad "the gasser" in order to fight ISIS? Has the Neo-Con approach been a failure? Under this approach we would need to keep large numbers of US troops engaged in that region indefinitely at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have. What's the next move on ISIS and what's the United States long term goals in this region of the world?

Obama really let down Lockheed Martin when he didn't pull the trigger on war with Syria. Guessing the Military Industrial Complex won't donate as much to the Left next time.

Meanwhile, watching the Right Wing media say Obama is weak for not going to war with Syria while also stating they would not have, is ironically epic. (because Fox News is stupid, not Right Wingers........unless they quote and follow it)

To understand Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and others, you have to understand the "Petrol Dollar". You also can research any media outside of USA and see that Benghazi was a CIA gun running station for Libya and Syria. The only people in the world confused about Benghazi are Americans. You can also see Syrian and Libyan rebels use brand new American weapons and ammo to overturn their Country.............Classic CIA coup.

I see, so then your theory is that ISIS is part of a Classic CIA coup (whatever that is), sounds more like classic paranoia.

 

[Camp]

If a person doesn't know who Assad gassed in desperation and who benefited from preventing the bombing of Assad's military assets understanding the development of ISIS is impossible.

 

[dilloduck]

My guess is that Assad benefitted most when is assets weren't bombed by the US.

 

[AntiParty]

Back in August of last year, the Obama administration was drawing a red line on Syria and wanting to bomb Syrian Army positions. Even "War on the Brain" McCain was pushing for this. Had we helped topple Assad last year, we can now have insight into the bloodshed that would have followed because of ISIS actions in Iraq. Neo Con theory calls for toppling these dictators and monarchs of the North Africa, Middle East and West Asia and thus democracy will follow. Idea was to give opposition groups in those nations an alternative to joining Islamic Extremist organizations. Instead what we have seen is the removal of Saddam has brought civil war and ISIS into Iraq. The Arab Spring has brought the Islamic Brotherhood to power in many of those countries. Now Obama administration is contemplating bombing ISIS in Syria. Assad must be laughing right now. What our next move? Do we now support Assad "the gasser" in order to fight ISIS? Has the Neo-Con approach been a failure? Under this approach we would need to keep large numbers of US troops engaged in that region indefinitely at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have. What's the next move on ISIS and what's the United States long term goals in this region of the world?

Obama really let down Lockheed Martin when he didn't pull the trigger on war with Syria. Guessing the Military Industrial Complex won't donate as much to the Left next time.

Meanwhile, watching the Right Wing media say Obama is weak for not going to war with Syria while also stating they would not have, is ironically epic. (because Fox News is stupid, not Right Wingers........unless they quote and follow it)

To understand Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and others, you have to understand the "Petrol Dollar". You also can research any media outside of USA and see that Benghazi was a CIA gun running station for Libya and Syria. The only people in the world confused about Benghazi are Americans. You can also see Syrian and Libyan rebels use brand new American weapons and ammo to overturn their Country.............Classic CIA coup.

I see, so then your theory is that ISIS is part of a Classic CIA coup (whatever that is), sounds more like classic paranoia.

It's not classic Paranoia. It's classic education. For those who actually seek education beyond party lines, Foreign Policy becomes a classic case of the Military Industrial Complex leading American News to call for War.

To see us absolutely busted today in acts of war without cause ;


Of course, we saw more cases of this last election because Iran had "blue tarps over things" even thought Pakistan had multiple nukes and Iran wasn't even proven to have 1 but Fox news Americans were ready to wage war on Iran for no proof, just like before.