Russian Mercenaries Supporting Assad.

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,044
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
71,277
Reaction score
6,679
Points
1,815
There were Russians in Egypt in 1967 too. Be not surprised. -----RUSSIANS
SUPPORT BAATHISTS-----ardently. Baathists are the TOTALITARIAN
UTOPIANISTS of the arab world. Their big thing is ARABISM, EMPIRE,
AND SOCIALISM (add to that islamicism) The Russians see the BAATHISTS as
as a GREAT POWER with which ----were the two to ALLY with each other----
would be the greatest power on earth. NOW YOU KNOW

Nasser was a baathist. Sadaam was a Baathist. Assad is a Baathist

the only time (as far as we know) that anyone used NITROGEN MUSTARD GAS---\
since world war I happened in the 1950s----NASSER used it in Yemen on
anti baathist villagers----civilians ---including children anyone interested in
what Nitrogen mustard gas does? Nasser got it from AL HUSSEINI---who got
it from germany------nasser gave the recipe to Sadaam ----a friendly gesture to
a fellow Baathist. I would not be surprised if the stuff shows up in Syria
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,757
Reaction score
2,610
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
There were Russians in Egypt in 1967 too. Be not surprised. -----RUSSIANS
SUPPORT BAATHISTS-----ardently. Baathists are the TOTALITARIAN
UTOPIANISTS of the arab world. Their big thing is ARABISM, EMPIRE,
AND SOCIALISM (add to that islamicism) The Russians see the BAATHISTS as
as a GREAT POWER with which ----were the two to ALLY with each other----
would be the greatest power on earth. NOW YOU KNOW

Nasser was a baathist. Sadaam was a Baathist. Assad is a Baathist

the only time (as far as we know) that anyone used NITROGEN MUSTARD GAS---\
since world war I happened in the 1950s----NASSER used it in Yemen on
anti baathist villagers----civilians ---including children anyone interested in
what Nitrogen mustard gas does? Nasser got it from AL HUSSEINI---who got
it from germany------nasser gave the recipe to Sadaam ----a friendly gesture to
a fellow Baathist. I would not be surprised if the stuff shows up in Syria
What happens when you add socialism to Islamism?
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
71,277
Reaction score
6,679
Points
1,815
There were Russians in Egypt in 1967 too. Be not surprised. -----RUSSIANS
SUPPORT BAATHISTS-----ardently. Baathists are the TOTALITARIAN
UTOPIANISTS of the arab world. Their big thing is ARABISM, EMPIRE,
AND SOCIALISM (add to that islamicism) The Russians see the BAATHISTS as
as a GREAT POWER with which ----were the two to ALLY with each other----
would be the greatest power on earth. NOW YOU KNOW

Nasser was a baathist. Sadaam was a Baathist. Assad is a Baathist

the only time (as far as we know) that anyone used NITROGEN MUSTARD GAS---\
since world war I happened in the 1950s----NASSER used it in Yemen on
anti baathist villagers----civilians ---including children anyone interested in
what Nitrogen mustard gas does? Nasser got it from AL HUSSEINI---who got
it from germany------nasser gave the recipe to Sadaam ----a friendly gesture to
a fellow Baathist. I would not be surprised if the stuff shows up in Syria
What happens when you add socialism to Islamism?

try to focus. Islamicism is a totalitarian utopian concept
Socialism combined with totalitarian utopia is
communism

nazism is THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRISM---
also a totalitarian utopian concept combined
with socialism

POL POT was communism combined with
Buddhism

Stalin was eastern orthodoxy combined
with communism

All engaged in gross genocide
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,581
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Granny says it's `cause dem evil Roosians is proppin' him up...

It's Time to Accept That Assad Is Not Going Anywhere
April 1, 2018 - While rebel factions are still in control of several provinces and a significant stretch of the Syrian countryside, their goal of overthrowing the regime is no longer plausible.
It was always a matter of when, not if, Syria’s rebel factions in the Eastern Ghouta suburbs laid down their arms and surrendered to Bashar al-Assad’s forces. What is commonly depicted in the West as the mainstream Syrian armed opposition has been squeezed of hope, bloodied, worn out, and beaten after seven years of all-out military assault by the Assad, Russia and Iran. While rebel factions are still in control of Idlib province in the northwest, some of Daraa province in the south, and a significant stretch of the Syrian countryside, their goal of forcefully overthrowing the regime in Damascus is no longer a plausible scenario.

The five-week Syrian government campaign in Eastern Ghouta is a metaphor for the how the war has been going for the opposition ever since Moscow decided to deploy its air force in September 2015 to save Assad’s skin. The last week has been an emotionally distressing time for the three main rebel factions (Jaish al-Islam, Faylaq al-Rahman and Ahrar al-Sham) and the 400,000 Syrian civilians in Ghouta who have been surrounded, starved, besieged and bombarded for the last five years. Much like in Homs, Daraya and Eastern Aleppo, Syrian government forces have used time and brutality to their advantage. The regime’s tactical playbook is the same; seal off a rebel district; prevent food, water, medicine and humanitarian relief from entering; block the sick and injured from leaving; pummel all of the civilian infrastructure in the area; and finally, dangle a widespread evacuation offer in return for accepting regime control. The rebels, cut off from supplies and bereft of support from external sponsors who have tired of the conflict, are faced with two alternatives: surrender unconditionally in return for relocating to the north, or die from starvation and bombing. The end result—a regime victory—is the same.

As morally repugnant and ethically incomprehensible as this is to admit, the United States needs to base its Syria policy on the premise of Bashar al-Assad staying in Damascus for years into the future. This is not the scenario Washington wanted, but it’s the scenario the Trump administration will be presented with. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s outline of a Syria policy earlier this year, which partly consisted of using U.S. military presence as leverage to move a political process in the country forward, has been overtaken by events on the ground. There is no serious, constructive diplomatic process to leverage because it’s not in the Assad regime’s interest to participate in one. For Assad to negotiate political concessions on Syria’s future at a time when his regime is clawing back territory would be the definition of geopolitical insanity.


Where does this leave the United States? Is there any way Washington could work with Bashar al-Assad ever again given the massive war crimes and crimes against humanity he has committed against his people? Fortunately, Syria’s political dispensation is not a core U.S. national security interest. As hard as this may be for the bipartisan foreign policy consensus to believe, Assad is a minor figure in the Middle East who is now wholly dependent on foreign military support for his survival. While the Assad regime cannot be ignored, neither can it significantly foreclose America’s freedom of movement in the region. U.S. Middle East policy will go on with or without Assad sitting in the presidential palace.

Indeed, as counterintuitive as it may appear, an Assad victory may actually provide the United States with an opportunity to throw Russia down a peg. It is Moscow that is responsible for Assad’s resurgence, and it will be Moscow that will be called upon to backstop its weak client whenever it runs into trouble. Syria’s economy is destroyed, its health sector is in tatters, and its status as an independent sovereign state is compromised—not exactly an optimal ally for the Russians. Damascus will need at least $200 billion to rebuild the homes, hospitals, plants, factories and farms that were razed to the ground. Vladimir Putin, a president lording over a decrepit and oligarchic economy, will be on the hook for much of that money if the United States and Western Europe refuse to assist in Syria’s reconstruction.

Russia helped break Syria in order to keep its ally in power. Now it’s responsible for fixing it. Through seven years of war on his own people, Bashar al-Assad is now on the same wavelength as some of the world’s most despicable dictators. There is no question that his preservation as Syria’s leader is unjust. But the world in general can often be an unfair and unjust place. Handling the Syria mess off to the Russians—all the while retaining the flexibility to target Syrian-based terror groups when they threaten to attack American interests—may be the Trump administration’s best play.

Source
 
OP
longknife

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,044
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
The Russians will hang around in Syria a whole lot longer than we did in Iraq.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top