NationStates

Arumbia67 wrote:I have an idea. Why don't we stop interfering in other nations business and focus on our own problems?

Kanaria wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote:I mean they'd have to realign their whole foreign policy in the region. But that's probably not a bad idea, seeing how that's been going for the whole of my fucking life time

Who knows, being genuinely liberal might actually work.

Bakery Hill wrote:Well there's only two. And Albania's been fine.

Mostly. Arabization and hence wahhabisation of the ummah marches on.

Behran wrote:The Kurds should have worked with Iran and Syria and not with America and the Zionists.

Bakery Hill wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
The IS and IRA are the same. Different motives, different people. But terrorism is terrorism.

Then you'll pretty much have to put every armed force in the world in that category whenever they enter a major war. The category becomes so big it's effectively useless. Different motives, different people, different strategies, different goals, the differences far outweigh the similarities.

Bakery Hill wrote:And finally the US betray the only secular democratic force in the region.

http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-bide ... 016-8?IR=T

The cynic in me is surprised it took this long. Biden's basically insisting that either the Syrian Democratic Forces hand towns like Manbij back to jihadist militias, or the US will let the Turks crush Rojava. These are towns, most of which are majority Arab, that have already begun to set up their own democratic structures and defence forces, who celebrated in the streets when the foreign jihadists of IS were drive out, and they've already insisted that they'll fight the Turkish backed Islamists rebels no matter what happens. All this highlights something we should never forget, but many of us often do. Don't listen when our politicians talk about "liberty" and "democracy", in the game of empire, expediency is king.

Was the US right to back Islamic fundamentalists against secular democrats so as to finally defeat the scourge of fundamentalist Islam? What will/can/should the SDF do now?

Costa Fierro wrote:The OP does realize the Syrian opposition isn't purely jihadists and other unsavoury groups, right?

Conserative Morality wrote:Probably should just drop the Turks at this point. Sorry, Turks.

Bakery Hill wrote:

Papal Republics wrote:The U.S. is in a "damned if we do, damned if don't" situation. Support Assad, we support a dictator who has oppressed his own people. Support the rebels, we inadvertently assist terror groups who want to hurt Americans. The best thing to do is remain neutral and focus instead on humanitarian efforts for civilians who want to evacuate the region. Let the two sides fight, as long as we save the actual human beings who want to live life peacefully.

The SDF are neither though?

Wallenburg wrote:Um...what the fuck? Kurdish forces are one of the few palatable factions left in the region. If anything, we should make support for them conditional on a guarantee that they advance further into ISIS-held territory.

Saiwania wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote:Nah fuck the Assad regime. Sectarian tyrants.

Is it even practical to have an anti-Assad stance anymore with regards to foreign policy? I think that point has long since passed. It has come down to a binary choice in terms of possible outcome in Syria- either Assad's regime remains in power and regains full control over their territory, or Assad's regime collapses and Syria is turned into a safe haven for Islamic terrorists.

The simple fact is that the Jihadist rebel groups are strong whilst the secular Syrian rebels are weak at best to non-existent in comparison and are a complete non-factor at this point in Syria's war. Do people really want to take the risk of destabilizing the entire region just to depose a dictator they disagree with?

This is akin to refusing to work with Joseph Stalin during World War 2, despite the fact that the USSR was in the best position to repel and defeat Nazi Germany.

Novus America wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
And yet you wonder why Iran has a Supreme Council encouraging people to sing "DEATH TO AMERICA" in the streets to begin with.

Umm the Clerics SUPPORTED the 1953 coup. To stop land reform. And only later turned against the Shah when the Shah tried land reform. Guess who owns most of the Iand?

Communal Ecotopia wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:The OP does realize the Syrian opposition isn't purely jihadists and other unsavoury groups, right?

Sure, but with the exception of the White Helmets, who don't actually fight, finding an umbrella organization of only good guys isn't easy.

Novus America wrote:

Communal Ecotopia wrote:
Sure, but with the exception of the White Helmets, who don't actually fight, finding an umbrella organization of only good guys isn't easy.

There are no good guys. There are only less bad guys.

Uxupox wrote:There is nothing to betray to begin with.

Communal Ecotopia wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote:The SDF are neither though?

The SDF are an agglomeration of a lot of things...the only things in common are being anti-Assad and anti-ISIS (other Islamist groups...that's a different story).

Communal Ecotopia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
There are no good guys. There are only less bad guys.

My point. But to label the entirety of the opposition jihadists is also not reasonable.

Behran wrote:The Kurds should have worked with Iran and Syria and not with America and the Zionists.

Communal Ecotopia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Um...what the fuck? Kurdish forces are one of the few palatable factions left in the region. If anything, we should make support for them conditional on a guarantee that they advance further into ISIS-held territory.

That would be great, but they'd only function in areas with sizable Kurdish populations to support them.

Communal Ecotopia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
There are no good guys. There are only less bad guys.

My point. But to label the entirety of the opposition jihadists is also not reasonable.

Novus America wrote:

Communal Ecotopia wrote:
My point. But to label the entirety of the opposition jihadists is also not reasonable.

Very true. The opposition is quit a mixed bag. It runs the gamut from western liberals, to far left socialists, to monarchists, to blood thirster jihadists among others.

But of all the groups the SDF is probably the least bad.

Bakery Hill wrote:The SDF are pretty far left socialist haha