Trump and Bolton are assembling an Arab force to replace the US contingent in Syria..

[LongTermGuy]

`Egypt, UAE and others asked to contribute millions of dollars and or troops`


https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-see...ria-1523927888


http://www.cetusnews.com/news/U-S--S...HJ8iXAG2f.html

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Isn't that exactly what they tried in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

How has that worked out?

[revelarts]

Couple of points here.

1. I'm having DeJa vu here. Didn't we go to Saudi Arabian states to get fighters and money to defeat Russia in Afghanistan?
Didn't they become (always were) American hating terrorist?
Do we ever learn here? Why exactly will it be different now?

2. Why send Arabs in when the Russians forces, the Syrian Army and the Kurds have already defeated Isis? They didn't need Arab or U.S. help before. Just the opposite, the Arab countries (and the U.S.) were funding, supplying and manning and ISIS/AlQaeda/Al Nusra/rebels. maybe we should punish the Arab states for that rather than send them in to "secure" the north.

3. And This is so important and clear that i really don't get the disconnect here for many in the U.S..
Syria never asked for Saudi or Arab or U.S. "help" to "secure jack squat. How do you "VOLUNTEER" troops into another country that never asked for it. By any objective definition that's called an Invasion. why do we think we have "a right" to do it?
Especially since The Saudis and other Wahhabi terrorist supporting states just want to defeat Assad and then oppress/control/kill the Alawite and Shia Muslims as well as the Christians and Kurds in Syria. the Alqeada flag will fly over Damascus just like it does in Libya.

4. Trump said in the campaign, "let Russia do it... defeating ISIS is the main thing.", and lets stay out altogether. He promised to stay out of Syria and other kinds of nation building. "It's a waste." Those were as serious a promise a "build a wall". I'm not sure why anyone should cheer and support his change here any more than if he said suddenly that we're not going to build a wall we're going to build more roads and bridges from Mexico and let more in, but Mexico is going to pay for them.

5. Bolton and the Neo-cons/Neo-libs only want the Arabs in Syria becasue the Arabs will work with the Western Oligarchs instead of the Russian and Chinese. As Palin said, follow the money.

Did i mention that the Saudi's arabs are where the terrorist came (still come) from, NOT Syria, or Russia. There were no beheadings in Syria, woman could drive and go to school, Christians had churches openly and lived peacefully. Syria was not paradise but it was better than Shari Law and Saudi Arabia.







Heart eating "moderate" Syrian "rebel".

[Kathianne]

Isn't that exactly what they tried in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

How has that worked out?

Yeah, at least in Iraq most saw us as 'liberators,' which never was true in Afghanistan or would be in Syria or with ISiS fighters. Even the Kurds have generations of reasons to not believe anything said by an American.

[LongTermGuy]

Isn't that exactly what they tried in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

How has that worked out?

We will see..."​Until its done its not real.....`art` of the deal"

[Drummond]

Couple of points here.

1. I'm having DeJa vu here. Didn't we go to Saudi Arabian states to get fighters and money to defeat Russia in Afghanistan?
Didn't they become (always were) American hating terrorist?
Do we ever learn here? Why exactly will it be different now?

2. Why send Arabs in when the Russians forces, the Syrian Army and the Kurds have already defeated Isis? They didn't need Arab or U.S. help before. Just the opposite, the Arab countries (and the U.S.) were funding, supplying and manning and ISIS/AlQaeda/Al Nusra/rebels. maybe we should punish the Arab states for that rather than send them in to "secure" the north.

3. And This is so important and clear that really i don't get the disconnect here for many on the right.
Syria never asked to Saudi or Arab or U.S. "help" to "secure jack squat. How do you "VOLUNTEER" troops into another country that never asked for it. By any objective definition that's called an Invasion. why do we think we have "a right" to do it?
Especially since The Saudis and other Wahhabi terrorist supporting states just want to defeat Assad and then oppress/control/kill the Alawite and Shia Muslims as well as the Christians and Kurds in Syria. the Alqeada will fly over Damascus just like it does in Libya.

4. Trump said in the campaign, "let Russia do it... defeating ISIS is the main thing.", and lets stay out altogether. He promised to stay out of Syria and other kinds of nation building. "It's a waste." Those were as serious a promise a "build a wall". I'm not sure why anyone should cheer and support his change here any more than if he said suddenly that we're not going to build a wall we're going to build more roads and bridges from Mexico and let more in, but Mexico is going to pay for them.

5. Bolton and the Neo-cons/Neo-libs only want the Arabs in Syria becasue the Arabs will work with the Western Oligarchs instead of the Russian and Chinese. As Palin said, follow the money.

Did i mention that the Saudi's arabs are where the terrorist came (still come) from, NOT Syria, or Russia. There were no beheadings in Syria, woman could drive and go to school, Christians had churches openly and lived peacefully. Syria was not paradise but it was better than than Saudi Arabia.







Heart eating "moderate" Syrian "rebel".

To summarise where you're going with this, then (the conclusion seems a remarkably simple one) ...

You're against US forces playing any part in Syria, and you want them to leave Syria alone. Syria, with Russia's assistance, is / has taken care of ISIS in that land .. they can be left to their own devices, in that regard.

So, basically -- it adds up, in practical terms, to Syria and Russia being left alone to 'do their own thing'.

Well, what IS 'their own thing', anyway ?

Assad has enemies. Some are ISIS. Some are others loosely called 'rebels'. And some, judging by the recent chemical attack, are innocent children ...

... but, that's all 'OK' ... because they're all anti-Assad (the ever-reputable Assad, says so !). Meaning, they're all ripe for chemical attacks, which you'd rather US forces were NOT on hand to in any way address ...

Revelarts, there's nothing from you in your posting which suggests opposition to Russia helping Assad. There's nothing from you about the wrong involved in gassing innocents. Nothing at all, that I can see.

But you are reasonably clear on the point that America has no need or reason for a presence in Syria.

Revelarts. I've repeatedly asked you for your own, 'better', alternative to the Allied attack on Syrian chemical facilities, and our strong objection to chemical attacks on civilian populations. Do I understand - in place of an actual ANSWER - that your preference is the current status quo in Syria ?

I'm sure there are many children in Syria who'd appreciate your thinking ... ?

I'd REALLY like you to tell me why the Left so enjoy defending tinpot dictators, regardless of the atrocities they commit.

H'm. Maybe you'd rather not answer this post, either, eh, Revelarts ? ...

[revelarts]

To summarise where you're going with this, then (the conclusion seems a remarkably simple one) ...
You're against US forces playing any part in Syria, and you want them to leave Syria alone. Syria, with Russia's assistance, is / has taken care of ISIS in that land .. they can be left to their own devices, in that regard.
So, basically -- it adds up, in practical terms, to Syria and Russia being left alone to 'do their own thing'.

That's what Trump said during the campaign, do you have problem with that?

[LongTermGuy]

We will see..."​Until its done its not real.....`art` of the deal"

​Translation: > who knows with Trump....it could be disinformation (using media) or..it could be real...Trump and company `do have records of past history` of all actions good and bad.

[revelarts]

Revelarts. I've repeatedly asked you for your own, 'better', alternative to the Allied attack on Syrian chemical facilities, and our strong objection to chemical attacks on civilian populations. Do I understand - in place of an actual ANSWER - that your preference is the current status quo in Syria ?
I'm sure there are many children in Syria who'd appreciate your thinking ... ?
H'm. Maybe you'd rather not answer this post, either, eh, Revelarts ? ...

well Drummond 1st off all I think we should have sent medical and humanitarian aid to help the victims 1st, rather than missiles don't you think?
After that how about some independent proof that the Assad Gov't is the guilty party of the attacks in the 1st place, and that he had chem weapons facilities even. At that point we can start talking about Constitutional and international laws based "alternative" punishments.
Does that make sense to you?

[Drummond]

That's what Trump said during the campaign, do you have problem with that?

Situations evolve. So should responses.

What gassings were being committed, during Trump's campaign ?

[Kathianne]

Situations evolve. So should responses.

What gassings were being committed, during Trump's campaign ?

Didn't Aleppo happen during the election? I'm pretty certain that someone didn't know about it at the time?

[Drummond]

well Drummond 1st off all I think we should have sent medical and humanitarian aid to help the victims 1st, rather than missiles don't you think?
After that how about some independent proof that the Assad Gov't is the guilty party of the attacks in the 1st place, and that he had chem weapons facilities even. At that point we can start talking about Constitutional and international laws based "alternative" punishments.
Does that make sense to you?

There's one very big problem with all of that.

Assad, and particularly Russia, OPPOSE ANYONE GOING TO THE AREA. OPCW investigators themselves have so far been denied access .. they MAY get access tomorrow !!

Perhaps you've 'overlooked' the fact that Russia vetoed a UN-based drive to investigate what had happened at the site of the gassing ? So what makes you think that Russia, or Assad, will let humanitarian workers of any description anywhere near there ?

Revelarts, really ... WAKE UP to the realities involved.

[revelarts]

Situations evolve. So should responses.
What gassings were being committed, during Trump's campaign ?

We were told that Assad gassed his people in 2013, Trump told Obama not to strike. during the campaign he had the same message.
nothing changed.

But what you think of the UK conservative Nigel Farage's advise to Trump to stay out of Syria. He hasn't changed his mind either.
Seems nothing has evolved in his estimation either
What alternative does he have that would satisfy you.

[Kathianne]

Situations evolve. So should responses.

What gassings were being committed, during Trump's campaign ?

Yep, this is from after he was President-elect: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...-zones-2016-12

It was Gary Johnson, Yea, that one, that was taken by surprise by Aleppo.

[Drummond]

Didn't Aleppo happen during the election? I'm pretty certain that someone didn't know about it at the time?

It did. But then, we were all assured it was 'terrorists' who were chiefly being combatted. Aleppo was even then a war zone. I'm guessing that Trump assumed that civilians had long since departed the area.

Were there reports of any chemical attacks against Aleppo, specifically ? I don't recall any.

Even so ... none of that addresses the current situation. That of Russia, in particular, having a zero moral compass when it comes to chemical attacks on civilians. Maybe there are some here who think this doesn't deserve remedial consideration ... but, as a citizen of a country that's been on the receiving-end of where that leads (!!) ... I don't think I can be expected to greet the Russian outlook with casually-minded equanimity !