I have been a hawk most of the time, in the past. But I'm having trouble with this one. Beside the fact that there does not seem to be a side we can support there (with the possible exception of the Kurds), I'm concerned with how can we be sure who is responsible for the gas attacks. I am not even convinced that they happened at all.
A few weeks ago, while I was giving Fordama a failing grade regarding his take on what happened in Libya, I ran across some disturbing things about that situation in 2011. What particularly bothered me, was the fact that NATO and other forces joined the battle against Gaddafi, based in a large part on reports of atrocities committed by his regime. The truth of the matter, is that both sides were guilty of atrocities. But...this sentence caught my eye:
"In June 2011, a more detailed investigation by Amnesty International found that many of the allegations against Gaddafi and the Libyan state turned out to be false or to lack any credible evidence, saying that rebels at times appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence." - Cockburn, Patrick (24 June 2011). "Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war". The Independent. London. Retrieved 26 June 2011.
If the evidence turns out to be clear that Assad's forces are the guilty ones, then I welcome the military action that it appears will come from a coalition of nations. But we need to be sure we aren't being played by the rebels producing some theater for the media. The media was manipulated by the Libyan rebels...is it happening again?
What does everyone think? It seems like the latest attack was strategically not in Assad's interests, considering the fact that Trump floated the idea of leaving Syria. That would make it logical that the opposite is true...that it would be in the strategic interest of the rebels that this gas attack should occur (or appear to occur), in order to keep the Americans in it.
FALLOUT FROM THE TURKEY-IRAN-RUSSIA MEETING
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met in Ankara for their second trilateral meeting on Syria. They see themselves as the “three guarantor states of the ceasefire in Syria,” according to Sputnik media, and they have been participating in talks in Astana relating to “reconciliation.”
http://www.jpost.com/International/Fall ... ing-549022
But generally, of all the crap going on in that region, our treatment of the Kurds has been a national disgrace.
Clinton and W Bush protected them but did not arm them very well because we're worried about stepping on Turkey's toes. Obama supplied arms and training to Kurds in Iraq to help fight ISIS. He was then going to do the same for Syrian Kurds.
But Trump nixed that program. And now the Turks are attacking the Kurds as well as Assad.
- John Q. Public
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19510
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
John Q. Public
Don't count out Israel having a role also.
Believing that Trump cares about the oppressed peoples of Syria after banning their refugees from coming here strikes me as disingenuous.
Bill Maher summed it up perfectly last night. We should call this what it is. Operation Desert Stormy.
John Q. Public
For you to suggest that anyone who opposes massive numbers of immigrants, can not also care about babies, children, and grannies, getting gassed is pathetic.
Anyway, It might be time for you to seek some help for turning every comment about Trump into your own personal offense.
I'm not a president who made a lot of statements about not being involved in Syria.Professor Fate wrote:For you to suggest that anyone who opposes massive numbers of immigrants, can not also care about babies, children, and grannies, getting gassed is pathetic.