US to change position on Syria again: Open end occupation to prevent Assad´s victory

[Bleipriester]

The Trump regime is going to change its Syria policy again. Syria, Russia and Iran must now start a campaign against the terrorist US mercenaries of the SDF. This would cause the US withdrawal from Syria. Russia is already considering the US presence in Syria an occupation.

U.S. moves toward open-ended presence in Syria after Islamic State is routed
US presence in Syria 'resembles occupation' - Zakharova

 

[Mousterian]

We have such a sad history of proxy warfare, meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations, killing millions of (mostly brown) people. We'll be remembered in history along with Genghis Kahn, Ivan the Terrible and Adolph Hitler.
And the President wants to make America 'great' again.

 

[Bleipriester]

They use the resources needed to restore the country to play war.

 

[DarkFury]

Well part of the MAGA again is MSSA!

 

[Bleipriester]

And once again nobody knows what the US is actually doing:

Trump has ended arms deliveries to Syrian Kurds: Turkey

 

[Marion Morrison]

Well, I hope it all works out OK.

I have a question: Don't the Kurds deserve their own place?

 

[Bleipriester]

Well, I hope it all works out OK.

I have a question: Don't the Kurds deserve their own place?

Syrian Kurds are Syrian nationals with all rights.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: US to change position on Syria again: Open end occupation to prevent Assad´s victory
※→ Marion Morrison,

The Kurdish People, in a way, were promised their own sovereign territory as a carve-out decided by the Three-Nation Commission made-up by the Allied Powers (British, French and Italian Governments). This can be found in Section III, Articles 62 thru 64, of the Treaty of Sevres (1920). But, as we all know, the Treaty was never ratified and Kemal Atatürk would no accept further territorial losses at the time the Treaty of Lausanne (1924); and the provision for a Kurdistan was omitted.

Well, I hope it all works out OK.

I have a question: Don't the Kurds deserve their own place?

(COMMENT)

Today, there is an semi-autonomous region of Iraq THAT officially comes under the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG); based in Erbil.

Source: UK Home Office
​

This is not to be confused with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK for Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê‎). The PKK has been fighting for independence from the Turks since the late 1970's. The PKK is considered a "terrorist group" (one of the few things that the US and Russians have agreed upon).

It is becoming clear that the PKK methods and goals of PKK to achieve any measure of autonomy have failed (miserably). Whereas the KRG has achieved many of the objectives originally envisioned at the end of the Great War.

The Kurds have, for all intent and purposes, their homeland. It is not the 1920 earmarked territory, but what it lacks in sized, it gains in oil revenues once.

I suspect that there will be (future tense) a very deadly clash between the Peshmerga (KRG Military Forces) and the Iraqi National Army over the control of the Kirkuk area; as well as that of Sinjar. I suspect that there will be a fight, and as usual, the US will be caught in the middle.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ESay]

It is what was going to happen in any case. Despite all Russian and Syrian propaganda that it is they who solely fight and defeated Isis, destroyed myriads of radicals and their objects and gained a victory in this war, one cannot ignore the reality in which the groups affiliated with the Western coalition control virtually a third of the country. You can’t ignore the situation on the ground. Actually, the most reasonable solution is involving of representatives of the coalition into negotiations of Syria’s future and creating of so-called safety zones.

 

[Bleipriester]

It is what was going to happen in any case. Despite all Russian and Syrian propaganda that it is they who solely fight and defeated Isis, destroyed myriads of radicals and their objects and gained a victory in this war, one cannot ignore the reality in which the groups affiliated with the Western coalition control virtually a third of the country. You can’t ignore the situation on the ground. Actually, the most reasonable solution is involving of representatives of the coalition into negotiations of Syria’s future and creating of so-called safety zones.

This has been discussed already and it is because ISIS fights the Syrian Army with all available means while offers little to no resistance to Kurds.

 

[irosie91]

Well, I hope it all works out OK.

I have a question: Don't the Kurds deserve their own place?

no they are untermenchen. In Islamic law even though they are muslims (mostly sunni, in fact---but the Kurdish hills also harbor yazidis, Christians and jews) they must be treated as
KAFFIRS because they reject the TYPICAL shariah shit. The fact that they are a bit liberal minded about others is UNACCEPTABLE in islam. Ataturk was friendly with Kurds----in fact, historically even jews were friendly with Kurds and in Turkey sought refuge in their hills. Salaadin supported the protection of jews too------in Egypt, in the times of Moshe ben Maimon. ---------thus the kurds are TRAITORS TO THE CAUSE (salaadin is considered a muslim hero as is ataturk ----but both are SULLIED BY THEIR ASSOCIATIONS

 

[ESay]

It is what was going to happen in any case. Despite all Russian and Syrian propaganda that it is they who solely fight and defeated Isis, destroyed myriads of radicals and their objects and gained a victory in this war, one cannot ignore the reality in which the groups affiliated with the Western coalition control virtually a third of the country. You can’t ignore the situation on the ground. Actually, the most reasonable solution is involving of representatives of the coalition into negotiations of Syria’s future and creating of so-called safety zones.

This has been discussed already and it is because ISIS fights the Syrian Army with all available means while offers little to no resistance to Kurds.

Yes, this piece of Russian and Syrian propaganda has been discussed here and I think that everyone has stayed with their opinion. And of course there were no fierce battles for Kobani and Raqqa, for example. And of course it was not the Western coalition that has been fighting on two fronts in this battle.

In any case the discussion of that doesn’t have a sense. There is a situation on the ground. And if someone wants to discuss the future of a country without those who have control of the country’s third part then it is their right. But in this case all talks about unity of this country are meaningless stuff.

 

[Bleipriester]

It is what was going to happen in any case. Despite all Russian and Syrian propaganda that it is they who solely fight and defeated Isis, destroyed myriads of radicals and their objects and gained a victory in this war, one cannot ignore the reality in which the groups affiliated with the Western coalition control virtually a third of the country. You can’t ignore the situation on the ground. Actually, the most reasonable solution is involving of representatives of the coalition into negotiations of Syria’s future and creating of so-called safety zones.

This has been discussed already and it is because ISIS fights the Syrian Army with all available means while offers little to no resistance to Kurds.

Yes, this piece of Russian and Syrian propaganda has been discussed here and I think that everyone has stayed with their opinion. And of course there were no fierce battles for Kobani and Raqqa, for example. And of course it was not the Western coalition that has been fighting on two fronts in this battle.

In any case the discussion of that doesn’t have a sense. There is a situation on the ground. And if someone wants to discuss the future of a country without those who have control of the country’s third part then it is their right. But in this case all talks about unity of this country are meaningless stuff.

The situation is obvious. ISIS fields tanks, Humvees, huge guns, grenade throwers, guided missiles and more against the Syrian army. We can see the stuff seized by the army. On the other hand, ISIS uses only light arms against SDF. Kobani and Raqqa was not on "two frontiers", both battles took place with years between them. And two US merc units do not seriously fight each other, except for when the US does not place any orders. Then they kill themselves in huge numbers for oil, soil and smuggle routes, creating happy days for the soldiers of the SAA.

 

[ESay]

It is what was going to happen in any case. Despite all Russian and Syrian propaganda that it is they who solely fight and defeated Isis, destroyed myriads of radicals and their objects and gained a victory in this war, one cannot ignore the reality in which the groups affiliated with the Western coalition control virtually a third of the country. You can’t ignore the situation on the ground. Actually, the most reasonable solution is involving of representatives of the coalition into negotiations of Syria’s future and creating of so-called safety zones.

This has been discussed already and it is because ISIS fights the Syrian Army with all available means while offers little to no resistance to Kurds.

Yes, this piece of Russian and Syrian propaganda has been discussed here and I think that everyone has stayed with their opinion. And of course there were no fierce battles for Kobani and Raqqa, for example. And of course it was not the Western coalition that has been fighting on two fronts in this battle.

In any case the discussion of that doesn’t have a sense. There is a situation on the ground. And if someone wants to discuss the future of a country without those who have control of the country’s third part then it is their right. But in this case all talks about unity of this country are meaningless stuff.

The situation is obvious. ISIS fields tanks, Humvees, huge guns, grenade throwers, guided missiles and more against the Syrian army. We can see the stuff seized by the army. On the other hand, ISIS uses only light arms against SDF. Kobani and Raqqa was not on "two frontiers", both battles took place with years between them. And two US merc units do not seriously fight each other, except for when the US does not place any orders. Then they kill themselves in huge numbers for oil, soil and smuggle routes, creating happy days for the soldiers of the SAA.

Actually, when I said about two fronts I meant Syria and Iraq.

Dude, if you want a united country then you should have talks with all forces that control various parts of the country. If you don’t want these talks then be ready to lose that part which is controlled by a certain group. It is as simple as that.

 

[Bleipriester]

It is what was going to happen in any case. Despite all Russian and Syrian propaganda that it is they who solely fight and defeated Isis, destroyed myriads of radicals and their objects and gained a victory in this war, one cannot ignore the reality in which the groups affiliated with the Western coalition control virtually a third of the country. You can’t ignore the situation on the ground. Actually, the most reasonable solution is involving of representatives of the coalition into negotiations of Syria’s future and creating of so-called safety zones.

This has been discussed already and it is because ISIS fights the Syrian Army with all available means while offers little to no resistance to Kurds.

Yes, this piece of Russian and Syrian propaganda has been discussed here and I think that everyone has stayed with their opinion. And of course there were no fierce battles for Kobani and Raqqa, for example. And of course it was not the Western coalition that has been fighting on two fronts in this battle.

In any case the discussion of that doesn’t have a sense. There is a situation on the ground. And if someone wants to discuss the future of a country without those who have control of the country’s third part then it is their right. But in this case all talks about unity of this country are meaningless stuff.

The situation is obvious. ISIS fields tanks, Humvees, huge guns, grenade throwers, guided missiles and more against the Syrian army. We can see the stuff seized by the army. On the other hand, ISIS uses only light arms against SDF. Kobani and Raqqa was not on "two frontiers", both battles took place with years between them. And two US merc units do not seriously fight each other, except for when the US does not place any orders. Then they kill themselves in huge numbers for oil, soil and smuggle routes, creating happy days for the soldiers of the SAA.

Actually, when I said about two fronts I meant Syria and Iraq.

Dude, if you want a united country then you should have talks with all forces that control various parts of the country. If you don’t want these talks then be ready to lose that part which is controlled by a certain group. It is as simple as that.

There are always talks but it is not that simple. As long as forces are sure they get support from outside, talks are in vain. How to talk to terrorists and thieves? They only agree to talks when they face death. Talks in Astana or in Geneva never accomplished anything.

 

[ESay]

It is what was going to happen in any case. Despite all Russian and Syrian propaganda that it is they who solely fight and defeated Isis, destroyed myriads of radicals and their objects and gained a victory in this war, one cannot ignore the reality in which the groups affiliated with the Western coalition control virtually a third of the country. You can’t ignore the situation on the ground. Actually, the most reasonable solution is involving of representatives of the coalition into negotiations of Syria’s future and creating of so-called safety zones.

This has been discussed already and it is because ISIS fights the Syrian Army with all available means while offers little to no resistance to Kurds.

Yes, this piece of Russian and Syrian propaganda has been discussed here and I think that everyone has stayed with their opinion. And of course there were no fierce battles for Kobani and Raqqa, for example. And of course it was not the Western coalition that has been fighting on two fronts in this battle.

In any case the discussion of that doesn’t have a sense. There is a situation on the ground. And if someone wants to discuss the future of a country without those who have control of the country’s third part then it is their right. But in this case all talks about unity of this country are meaningless stuff.

The situation is obvious. ISIS fields tanks, Humvees, huge guns, grenade throwers, guided missiles and more against the Syrian army. We can see the stuff seized by the army. On the other hand, ISIS uses only light arms against SDF. Kobani and Raqqa was not on "two frontiers", both battles took place with years between them. And two US merc units do not seriously fight each other, except for when the US does not place any orders. Then they kill themselves in huge numbers for oil, soil and smuggle routes, creating happy days for the soldiers of the SAA.

Actually, when I said about two fronts I meant Syria and Iraq.

Dude, if you want a united country then you should have talks with all forces that control various parts of the country. If you don’t want these talks then be ready to lose that part which is controlled by a certain group. It is as simple as that.

There are always talks but it is not that simple. As long as forces are sure they get support from outside, talks are in vain. How to talk to terrorists and thieves? They only agree to talks when they face death. Talks in Astana or in Geneva never accomplished anything.

For you they are terrorists and thieves, for someone else they are fighters for their own land. Talks without Kurd will always be in vain. And of course they will have support from outside as well as the Asad regime also has this kind of support.

 

[Bleipriester]

This has been discussed already and it is because ISIS fights the Syrian Army with all available means while offers little to no resistance to Kurds.

Yes, this piece of Russian and Syrian propaganda has been discussed here and I think that everyone has stayed with their opinion. And of course there were no fierce battles for Kobani and Raqqa, for example. And of course it was not the Western coalition that has been fighting on two fronts in this battle.

In any case the discussion of that doesn’t have a sense. There is a situation on the ground. And if someone wants to discuss the future of a country without those who have control of the country’s third part then it is their right. But in this case all talks about unity of this country are meaningless stuff.

The situation is obvious. ISIS fields tanks, Humvees, huge guns, grenade throwers, guided missiles and more against the Syrian army. We can see the stuff seized by the army. On the other hand, ISIS uses only light arms against SDF. Kobani and Raqqa was not on "two frontiers", both battles took place with years between them. And two US merc units do not seriously fight each other, except for when the US does not place any orders. Then they kill themselves in huge numbers for oil, soil and smuggle routes, creating happy days for the soldiers of the SAA.

Actually, when I said about two fronts I meant Syria and Iraq.

Dude, if you want a united country then you should have talks with all forces that control various parts of the country. If you don’t want these talks then be ready to lose that part which is controlled by a certain group. It is as simple as that.

There are always talks but it is not that simple. As long as forces are sure they get support from outside, talks are in vain. How to talk to terrorists and thieves? They only agree to talks when they face death. Talks in Astana or in Geneva never accomplished anything.

For you they are terrorists and thieves, for someone else they are fighters for their own land. Talks without Kurd will always be in vain. And of course they will have support from outside as well as the Asad regime also has this kind of support.

I was not talking about the Kurds only. The "Assad regime" is the legitimate government, president and parliament are democratically elected. In contrast to that, nobody has ever elected PYD and its military wing. They are occupants only representing themselves and not the Kurds in general.
However, talks have changed nothing so far. All truces are unilateral: No "rebel" has ever agreed to "deescalation zones". Aside media coverage they start offensives with thousands of fighters the army has to deal with. All "deescalation zones" are active battlefields as we talk.