US changes it's stance on Assad

Let's remember that camps of displaced peoples are permanent. They don't just go away.

So, they need all the resources of a permanent, self sufficient population - government, agriculture, transportation, markets, ...

The only real solution to refugees is to stop whatever is causing the people to have to move.

 

All the more reason to move to them to the Golan Heights.
It's in Syria and it's protectable and sealable and with a friendly proto Syria on it's borders, the reasons for Israeli's to migrate there is removed.

The solution to Syria's migration problem (ISIS) is to create a stable Iraq.
The solution to Iraq's problems is to migrate ISIS out of Iraq.

There are no solutions. The trick is not to be the one who get's left with all migrants. To have secure borders.

 

There is no reason why these things cannot be made for / in a displaced persons camp, if it is intended to be permanent. The problem is that we treat the camp as temporary.

 

Oh please, like the US is anywhere near organized enough to even attempt that. If it were, the US economy would be in much better shape.

Don't you get it yet? Everyone is an idiot.

Its just that some are even stupider than others.

 

I'm not ruling it out.

But, the required investment to build a ready made independent community of the size required would seem to be outside the amount we're willing to donate.

Most of what we build appears as a military compound, designed for easy distribution of water and food that is assumed to arrive forever.

 

Yeah, but that is what we build. The refugees themselves represent a substantial free workforce that is currently massively under-applied. Once you have security, food and water organised, then one can begin mobilising the refugees into constructing permanent infrastructure. I don't think it would ever achieve food self-sufficiency, but then few urbanised centres these days enjoy that privilege.

 

Well I am sure of it.

 

I think the track record will bear out that only wealthy nations can survive by buying food.

Those that aren't either wealthy or self sufficient in food are headed in the direction of failed state status.

The world didn't solve the agricultural disaster in Syria, so millions of farmers moved toward the cities - which were not prepared to provide for them.

 

No one saw planes only a drone. After trying to establish where it came from, they decided it had to have come from the Saudi/Israeli base in Jordan.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/12/trump-withholds-syria-sarin-evidence/

 

The Shia crescent is what separates and keeps the Sunni terrorists from the Gulf from infiltrating and recruiting terrorists from the Caucasus and Central Asian states.

 

Seems you only wish to credit Obama when the moment suits you. Then you blame Bush.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/overth...the-master-list-of-u-s-regime-changes/5400829

 

Hold on here.

Do you really seek Trump remove Assad?

IF one wanted to get rid of Assad, a smart plan is to make it appear he gassed Syrians. Who would create a condition for Assad to get accused?

I don't know the answers but smell a rat. And I voted for Trump.

I am not blaming it on Trump but and holding my powder dry that it could be Assad.

Assad has far more to lose than does Donald.

 

Trump has already cracked his base via his new Neocon militarism.

Suddenly, same ole Bill Clinton, Bush, Jr., Obama "war we must" policy.
A policy candidate Trump promised to stop.

Yes Trump's new Neocon warism cost him a chunk of his base and gained him what?


Moi

r > g

If not now, when. If not us, who.
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
​

 

??? I didn't deny that in ANY WAY. I pointed it out!

You may notice that most of those on your list are not even close Syria.

Much more importantly the point was that both Dems and Repos have seen the Assad regime as needing to be opposed and that it has been US policy for a LONG TIME.

And, if you read the thread, you will notice that there is a guy on this thread, who I responded to, who somehow thinks we're in FAVOR of Assad (or should be??).

 

I'm not particularly in favor of conspiracy theories.

The bottom line is that we need Russia's cooperation in causing a transition in government to a government that is inclusive of Syria as a whole. Can that be done without Russia? I've never read any analysis that would suggest that.

I hope to god that we didn't gas civilians in some demented plan to cast some shade on Assad - a tyrannical dictator who has a long history of incredible brutality used to subdue the Sunni majority he disenfranchises. Why would another horrendous criminal act be required?

If you want to go looking for the nefarious, how about asking why Trump's buddies the Russians are blocking investigation of this attack.

 

Except for the fact I did not suggest Trump gassed syrians, there are others who desperately do want Assad gone to use local stocks of chemicals and point fingers at Assad.

Russia wants this investigated. As do I. Russia is not happy with Trump despite what Democrats claimed to be the great relationship of Putin to Trump. Trump says till now he never met Putin.

 

We should NOW have been a neutral party.

Frankly haven't we done our share and more in the ME?

 

- Obama's policy on Syria was not "war we must", obviously.

- "Trump" and "policy" don't belong in the same document. Please wait until he keeps an advisor for a month or two and holds to a policy direction when it isn't "feel good" happy hour.

He may have been a "neocon" a week ago Thursday, but that doesn't mean he was "neocon" last Tuesday any more than before he was president.

 

Russia vetoed the investigation of the gas attack.

And, I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound much like "Russia wants this investigated".


As for the Trump Putin connection, nobody has suggested it's a match made in heaven. However, there is NO QUESTION that Putin made a serious effort to change the election outcome in Trump's favor - with Trump and son in law having serious business interests in Russia and multiple campaign and administration officials with serious connections to Russian business - and a Republican House investigator who has given false testimony on the topic.

Puting hated Clinton, because the Clinton's allowed western Europe to exceed previously agreed limits on eastern expansion.

And, you know how bad it is that we pushed for eastern Europe to be oriented to the west and democracy!!!

 

Obama used proxies, that is the difference, and it was war we must. In the process of using proxies he enabled radical islamists, and coddled them in some ways, so he could use them to try to take out assad. Libya, another nation on the Neocon list was taken down, and how did his war mongering work out that time? He continued doing the Neocon bidding, but given he ran on not doing that, he had to do it in a most sneaky manner. He was the Drone President, killing more women and children than the male enemies.

Trump did not run as a neocon. In fact his beliefs for years were not neoconish at all. So this flip flop is significant, and he went against the advice of bannon or so we hear. One wonders if you ever listened to what he campaigned on? If you had, you would have known his campaign positions very well.

It looks like he is getting contradictory advice to me. I have little doubt he has neocons that surround him. They are like fleas in DC. They permeate all branches of gov't and intel.

 

We opened a gigantic can of worms by conquering Iraq. What we see in Syria is in part blow back related to the creation of organized terrorism in Iraq, where we chose leadership that drove Sunnis out of government and proceeded to slaughter Sunni civilians.

I agree we've chosen to take a FAR too militaristic direction. But, figuring out how to move to something better is not easy - especially when we have leadership and a US population that is so attached to the sudden "solution" of blowing the holy crap out of stuff we hate. The direction of diplomacy and negotiation don't involve huge explosions with the body parts of our enemies sprayed around. As long as that is what we like, it's going to be hard to find a less militaristic approach.

Yes, Obama and HClinton were too militaristic for me (not just Bush). But, we're now moving MORE in that direction, not less.

 

Absolutely - Libya was a disaster. Like with Iraq, we somehow thought that by blowing up the government something good would start. At least we aren't doing that in Syria.

In Syria, Obama used local forces or those of cooperating regional nations. That made sense in that US forces need local help against terrorist groups - as we learned in Iraq. Also, having those who are relatively local, of the same religion, understanding of the culture, etc. fight ISIS is also politically more effective.

The objective has been to work to reduce ISIS as much as possible, realizing that a final solution can't be had until there is leadership in Damascus that is acceptable to the Sunni population (which is the majority).

Trump has said all sorts of stuff. I don't accept that Trump has a policy. So far, he does and says what feels good at the time. He's still holding campaign events.

 

I feel that Syria should be left to their civil war in peace.

 

Let's have the correct Russia story told so we can evaluate them.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/assad-syria-sarin-gas/

New York (CNN)The UN Security Council failed Wednesday to so much as condemn last week's chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in Syria.

Russia vetoed a UN resolution condemning the killings, believed to have been carried out with sarin gas, and calling on Moscow ally Syria to cooperate with an international investigation of events on the ground.

Russia said the US, UK and France, who backed the resolution, rushed to judgment. Deputy Russian UN Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov told the council that "the main problem was that the draft resolution by the Troika appointed the guilty party prior to the investigation, prior to an independent and objective investigation. Now this is an approach incompatible with the legal norms."

 

Obama had a long standing habit of spending month upon month talking and talking about some action. He was so wishy washy that it mattered not since to the rest of the world, it was but one more faded red line in the sand.

Trump is decisive. I think now you know his policy in Syria.