During the Obama Administration, Obama sort of took his time in making his decision on whether to send boots on the ground to Syria. He did tell Assad that he had to go, but of course, Assad is still around.
Doesn't seem like going in would have done much, given our history in the area:
1. Iraq-We spent significant military resources, and we spent significant capital trying to reform their political system. Not exactly a place you want to furnish an American/UK flag.
2. Afganistan-We intervened Militarily, but did not spend as much capital in trying to affect their politics. Opiod Capital of the world.
3. Libya-We spent a little bit on military resources, and didn't do much politically there. Basically an ISIS recruiting group.
Like, what the fuck could we have done in Syria? Keep in mind that they have Russian support now, so it would have been a cluster fuck Jewish-UK-US coalition vs Russia-Syria-Iranian one. I admit the WW3 fears are founded, but it probably would have been like any other proxy war.
So what Sup Forums, did Obama make the right decision in not sending thousands of soldiers there?
How new are you? We made Iraq, Libya and Syria happen to protect the petrol dollar and Afghanistan happened to increase military spending and pass home security laws. You can't lose or win wars you create for a specific purpose of economy.
Jaxson Murphy
dude go back to sucking off alex jones. go chase those chemtrails.
Jayden Hughes
Hey fuck you we're breaking the conditioning here
Jeremiah Powell
Here is what Obama did in Syria
1) He blamed the chemical attack on Assad 2) Russian Intel said the chemical weapon was from Iraq (you know, the WMD that Obama claimed Bush lied about) 3) Obama started arming the Syrian rebels (aka ISIS) 4) Obama is the enemey
Samuel Jackson
Like i said, go chase those chem trails
Anthony Williams
I think ISIS consider themselves a totally separate group, apart the other Syrian rebels that don't want ISIS and are trying to liberate their country.
Luke Roberts
You say Obama is the enemy, meanwhile Obama is hanggliding with his bro richard branson while he laughs at you.
Jace King
>rebels that don't want ISIS and are trying to liberate their country
that's a good one. the headchopping wahhabi scumbags of Al Nusra want to "liberate" Syria by turning it into a Sunni theocracy where women have no rights.
how liberating! not at all like those meanie heads in ISIS, no.
John Scott
No because our weapon of choice was sunni terrorists who are incompetent at anything but raping westerners and killing other goat herding nonhumans.
The only alternative was calling Russian nuclear bluffs which no sane person would do. The neocon hype about trying it was just to make Trump look weak on Russia. Had Hillary won she would have just doubled down on arming the jihadi fuckbois and played off the Russian confrontation.
Syria would be worse off but no objective would be complete. Syria really can't be won, nor can Iran, with Russia and her nukes on their side.
Leo Foster
Thanks for the educated post
Mason Richardson
There are no good , moderate people to support.
Zachary Miller
Assad is.
Thomas Thompson
The only way to win is to cease pursuit of the objective of deposing based Assad.
Let Trump redefine victory as the annihilation of ISIS, cooperate with Assad and Putin in Syria, purge the terrorist scum from the face of the earth, and the President can have himself an American "victory" in Syria by the end of 2017.
Chase Green
ohhh scary emo man.
Joseph Green
>did Obama make the right decision in not sending thousands of soldiers there? do you want to die for israel? because there's no benefit for you pleb.
Benjamin Edwards
Assad somewhat dictatorial in nature, yes, but he's preferable by leaps and bounds to any other candidate that could possibly gain control of the region. (That's simply how things are in the MENA region. Either you have a dictator, or you have chaos and terror. Let the deaths of Gaddafi and Saddam, and the subsequent rise of ISIS in Libya and Iraq, be a lesson to you.)
Preferable, that is, from a humanitarian perspective, or from the perspective of someone who wants to end the influence of international terrorists like ISIS. The Assad regime is unacceptable to the imperialist neocons (and neo-Cohens) that have ruled over every American foreign policy decision for the past three decades. Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, and their cadre of warmongers, would much rather see the country in the hands of an fraudulent government and wracked by unending violence and human rights abuses, than endure the presence of such a large thorn in the side of the diplomatic and military hegemony of the United States and Israel in the Middle Eastern region.
Connor Martin
I concede that point. Even if the "moderate" syrian rebels were able to take control of Syria, there is a really really high chance that the new leader would be even worse than Assad.
I dunno. Assad is very terrible. He's killed hundreds of thousands of his own civilian people. There's stories of people who didn't give two fucks about politics or Islam and having bombs fall on their homes.
I appreciate your intelligent response user
Logan Long
>He's killed hundreds of thousands of his own civilian people
You fell for propaganda, dude...
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that no civilian has ever been killed by the SAA. that is verifiably untrue. however, please ask yourself: why exactly is Assad killing these people? how often do you see an explanation as to why exactly Assad is "killing civilians"? is he intentionally just massacreing as many of his own citizens as he can? perhaps you imagine he is a sociopath and he just thinks it's entertaining when civilians die in airstrikes.
The reality of the situation is that the terrorists that Assad is fighting against have absolutely no regard for the Geneva Conventions. the idea of being taken to the ICC to account for their actions is a total joke to them, because they don't intend to form a state that will hold itself accountable to the United Nations. as I said, these combatants are extremist fundamentalist nutjobs. as such they always base their barracks and anti-air emplacements inside hospitals, bakeries, schools for children, and crowded apartment complexes (flagrant GC violations) while making sure to hold as many civilians hostage in these locations as possible. these practices are well documented.
Thus, Assad's hands are tied. he must strike these positions or else the terrorists will continue to use them to launch attacks against his military and civilian populations. however, when he does strike them, it invariably results in civilian death thanks to the practices of the soulless terrorists. then, this kernel of truth (Assad's actions led to the death of civilians!) is passed around and magnified a thousand times by the surrogates of these terrorists in Western Media (the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, for instance) until all that remains is the bogus claim that Assad is simply a butcher who massacres his own countrymen.
(continued below)
James Edwards
USA can "win" against any of these shit countries if they go total war on their asses, America hasn't been in a proper war since WW2.
Jace Clark
these claims are then reported on as "allegations" with no further explanation of the nuance of the situation by Western mass media like CNN, who are in turn largely influenced by the desires of the USG to establish an anti-Assad narrative.
as for the number being in the hundreds of thousands, I don't believe it for a second. this figure is, again, generated by the same bullshit terrorist sympathizer sources as the rest of these stories, such as the SOHR. when a pile of bodies is lying in the rubble of a destroyed building, who is to contradict you if you claim they were all civilians? if you are the only "observer" present, who is to say you are lying to CNN when you say that 20 civilians died even though you only found ten bodies? in fact, who is to even contradict the claim that a dead body is a Syrian civilian even if he was some greencollar mercenary who traveled to the theater from Northern Africa to make money?
it's an unfortunate fact that we will never ever get any really reliable figures on the death toll in Syria.
I'm not saying that these strikes on civilians have never happened. I'm not saying that I love Assad and want to suck his dick or that his hands are clean. war is a horrifying mess. but these incidents are a small minority, and accidental in nature, not the result of Assad just being a crazy murderer. those allegations simply don't make sense. they're just propaganda
Jackson Collins
>Could we have "won" in Syria? no it would have been a shit show
Oliver Richardson
Vete a la chingada Uruguay.
Colton Green
Ok then let me ask you a question.
What are Legitimate sources? What isn't fake news?
That's really cute.. another American keyboard warrior on Sup Forums using the phrase "boots on the ground"
James Howard
> Obama Arm rebels > ISIS marches into rebel controlled territory unchallenged (how much land in how many days again?) > rebels retreat > Don't fight, don't blow up weapon cache, don't retreat in shiney new Toyota Hilux > doineedtofinishthis.jpg
trust no source as gospel. only that which can be demonstrated by evidence to be true, is true. don't trust official statements from the Russians, or from the Americans, or from the Turks, or from the Kurds, or from anyone. believe only that which can be proven. no outlet is 100% honest, and no outlet is 100% accurate. however, no outlet is 100% dishonest either. occasionally the Russians are telling the truth. occasionally, the Americans are. but, please, always investigate independently before deciding what to believe.
the SOHR in particular, though, is in a shit tier of its own. if they ever claim - or rather, if HE ever claims, because the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" is literally one single man who lives in the UK - that any particular assertion is true, you can be reasonably assured that it is untrue. if he put out a statement tomorrow saying that water is wet, I might seriously start considering the possibility that water is actually not wet.
Brandon Williams
> bluepilled geopolitical musings: Sunday night edition
David James
Could you have "won" in Mexico? I've seen interviews with Mexican youths whos sole ambition in life, as taught by their parents, is to make a break for the US by any means necessary rather than to fix their own shit.
Cooper Lopez
>america >win
Ian Turner
lol. again i appreciate the intelligence behind your post.
Cameron Reed
You're an idiot if you think his comments are chemtrail-tier.
See Or maybe just go back to CNN for some more """news""" about the latest in the middle east.
Josiah King
Growing up in those places there isn't much to really expect from the future. Don't you think most Russians, Nigerians, Nepalese, Macedonians, Belarusians, Guatemalans, Jamaicans wish they had a better government/country?
Only like 10% of the world actually lives in a country/place that is reformable and well...with a decent quality of life, strong institutions, and strong economic opportunities. If you were born in fucking Somalia, you'd probably eiter be a child soldier, be doing raids on French vessels and stealing their shit, or going to dubai to build their slave-stadiums while they hold your passport and take 30% of your earnings.
Tat's like saying, well, why don't Americans just fix all their problems tomorrow.
Nathaniel Peterson
I'm just critical of these conspiratorial stories that everyting that is happening in the middle east right now was planned 50 years ago. Nobody fucking knows wat will happen tomorrow.
Jordan Gray
>There's stories of people who didn't give two fucks about politics or Islam and having bombs fall on their homes. wow surprise ,people died during a civil war
Nicholas Phillips
>it would have been a cluster fuck Jewish-UK-US coalition vs Russia-Syria-Iranian one. I admit the WW3 fears are founded, but it probably would have been like any other proxy war.
you wrote "would have been" twice, as if you're not quite aware that this is exactly what is going on today. it is a literal proxy war and cold war in every sense of the phrase, between a coalition of US-backed fighters who are (inadvertently) advancing the interests of the USA and Israel, against fighters from Iran, Russia, and Syria.
But ask a random American, "how do you feel about the current cold war between America and Russia?", and over 90% would just give you a funny look or say, 'huh?'
he is learning, let him learn. or better yet, share
this much is true. the major players have long term objectives which are relatively static, but the situation on the ground on any given day is much more random, unpredictable and less controlled than many would like to believe.
Michael Stewart
>won in making a surrogate state for isis? what were we trying to win exactly?
kill assad? destroy the military? we have nukes, of course we could have. If that was the question, its a dumb one.
Jackson Foster
All those wars are just the Military-Industrial Complex creating, and managing chaos: this brings profit.
They were never meant to be won. Won against who moreover? against yourself?
Thomas Ortiz
Forgot pic related
Julian Cooper
> I'm just critical as well you should be. Be critical of everything, especially the official stories in the """news""".
Alex is full of shit, and right only slightly more often than a broken clock. Look elsewhere.
Really, just lurk here more often and pay attention to the geopolitically-related threads. Check out the Syria general thread.
If you Google about the proposed pipelines and the countries they run through shown in 's pic, you'll likely find some interesting articles. Some may contain shit, while others will contain truth. Train your bullshit detector.
Overthrowing dictators via """rebel""" support has been in fashion for a while now. Google "Marc Turi Libya".
Industrial military complex, petrodollar, pipeline, arms deals, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar.
Connor Flores
Russian boots will be on the ground American aircraft will be death from above.
A victorious peace might be a possibility. Leave Syria as it was, with the same boss we win and enjoy the first 'true' victory since WWII.
