Saudi Arabia ready to take part in any US-led ground operations in Syria

Sly Lampost · Feb 11, 2016

Margot2 said: ↑

Do you recall what Assad did in March 2011?
Click to expand...

Do you recall that it's been thoroughly debunked?

- - - Updated - - -

El Cid said: ↑

No..........I have news for the goat fukking Muslim scum funding jihad around the world:

You pampered Muslim pusssies can take on Assad and the Russians YOURSELVES...............no more Americans will die for you.
Choke on it Ishmaelites.
Click to expand...

Move along folks. No projection going on here...

Sly Lampost · Feb 11, 2016

Margot2 said: ↑

Saudi Arabia didn't fund them.. KSA went thru that blowback when they stopped funding AQ in the US proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan.. over 20 years ago.. Don't believe the rubbish you read in the western press. They just speculate like some circle jerk and quote each other.
Click to expand...

What nonsense. You, Margot, never ever stop spinning the same story irrespective of what evidence there is to the contrary. For you, the KSA always seems to be unimpeachable. Is it a religious fervour?

Silver Surfer · Feb 11, 2016

Let's not forget who laid the framework for the regime change in Syria.

What US Congress Researchers Reveal About Washington’s Designs on Syria

Seeing the government in Damascus as too far to the left, Washington has been trying to orchestrate a regime change in Syria since at least 2003

February 9, 2016

By Stephen Gowans
https://gowans.wordpress.com/2016/0...rs-reveal-about-washingtons-designs-on-syria/

Documents prepared by US Congress researchers as early as 2005 revealed that the US government was actively weighing regime change in Syria long before the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, challenging the view that US support for the Syrian rebels is based on allegiance to a “democratic uprising” and showing that it is simply an extension of a long-standing policy of seeking to topple the government in Damascus. Indeed, the researchers made clear that the US government’s motivation to overthrow the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is unrelated to democracy promotion in the Middle East. In point of fact, they noted that Washington’s preference is for secular dictatorships (Egypt) and monarchies (Jordan and Saudi Arabia.) [1] The impetus for pursuing regime change, according to the researchers, was a desire to sweep away an impediment to the achievement of US goals in the Middle East related to strengthening Israel, consolidating US domination of Iraq, and fostering free-market, free enterprise economies. Democracy was never a consideration.

The researchers revealed further that an invasion of Syria by US forces was contemplated following the US-led aggression against Iraq in 2003, but that the unanticipated heavy burden of pacifying Iraq militated against an additional expenditure of blood and treasure in Syria. [2] As an alternative to direct military intervention to topple the Syrian government, the United States chose to pressure Damascus through sanctions and support for the internal Syrian opposition.

The documents also revealed that nearly a decade before the rise of Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra that the US government recognized that Islamic fundamentalists were the main opposition to the secular Assad government and worried about the re-emergence of an Islamist insurgency that could lead Sunni fundamentalists to power in Damascus. A more recent document from the Congress’s researchers describes a US strategy that seeks to eclipse an Islamist take-over by forcing a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Syria in which the policing, military, judicial and administrative functions of the Syrian state are preserved, while Assad and his fellow Arab nationalists are forced to leave office. The likelihood is that if this scenario plays out that Assad and his colleagues will be replaced by biddable US surrogates willing to facilitate the achievement of US goals.

+++

In 2005, Congress’s researchers reported that a consensus had developed in Washington that change in Syria needed to be brought about, but that there remained divisions on the means by which change could be effected. “Some call for a process of internal reform in Syria or alternatively for the replacement of the current Syrian regime,” the report said. [3] Whichever course Washington would settle on, it was clear that the US government was determined to shift the policy framework in Damascus.

The document described the Assad government as an impediment “to the achievement of US goals in the region.” [4] These goals were listed as: resolving “the Arab-Israeli conflict;” fighting “international terrorism;” reducing “weapons proliferation;” inaugurating “a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Iraqi state;” and fostering market-based, free enterprise economies. [5]

Stripped of their elegant words, the US objectives for the Middle East amounted to a demand that Damascus capitulate to the military hegemony of Israel and the economic hegemony of Wall Street. To be clear, what this meant was that in order to remove itself as an impediment to the achievement of US goals—and hence as an object of US hostility—Syria would have to:

o Accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state on territory seized from Palestinians, and quite possibly also Syrians and Lebanese, possibly within borders that include the Golan Heights, annexed from Syria by Israel in 1987 and occupied by Israel since 1967.
o End its support for militant groups seeking Palestinian self-determination and sever its connections with the resistance organization Hezbollah, the main bulwark against Israeli expansion into Lebanon.
o Leave itself effectively defenceless against the aggressions of the United States and its Middle East allies, including Israel, by abandoning even the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction (while conceding a right to Israel and the United States to maintain vast arsenals of WMD.)
o Terminate its opposition to US domination of neighboring Iraq.
o Transform what the US Congress’s researchers called Syria’s mainly publicly-owned economy, “still based largely on Soviet models,” [6] into a sphere of exploitation for US corporations and investors.

+++

US government objections to Syrian policy, then, can be organized under three US-defined headings:

o Terrorism.
o WMD.
o Economic reform.

These headings translate into:

o Support for Palestinian and Lebanese resistance groups.
o Self-defense.
o Economic sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Kisses · Feb 11, 2016

Jeannette said: ↑

The question is, how can a nation such as Saudi Arabia with an ideology which has spawned ISIS, fight against it's own creation? If Saudi Arabia or Turkey sends troops into Syria, more than likely it will mean war with Iran. Shoigu said he feared this would happen if ISIS is not defeated by the end of the summer.

- - - Updated - - -

But if the US were to enter Syria, that too would be considered an invasion of a sovereign nation. Of course that never held Washington back before.
Click to expand...

To my mind ISIS was spawned by some investor who was interested in terrorism existing in this region. Ideology, religion etc are only tool to make people be assassins. If this investor says "STOP" - ISIS will by stoped.

Giftedone · Feb 11, 2016

Margot2 said: ↑

And you know this from your perch in Missouri?

KSA deliberated for 2 weeks about supporting al Nusra several years ago and backed out because they were too savage.
Click to expand...

And as usual you provide no evidence to support your claim. Regardless, they supported Islamic Extremists in opposition to Assad who "at minimum" were fighting along-side Al Nusra - Which is the same darn thing as supporting Al Nusra.

Oxymoron · Feb 11, 2016

Fallen said: ↑

Saudi Arabia expressed its readiness to send ground troops to Syria if the US-led coalition decided that such operation is necessary, an adviser to the Saudi defense minister said.

"The kingdom is ready to participate in any ground operations that the coalition [against Islamic State] may agree to carry out in Syria," Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri, who is also the spokesman for the Saudi-led Arab coalition in Yemen, told al-Arabiya.

According to Asseri, Saudi Arabia has been an active member of the US-led coalition since the countrys warplanes carried out more than 190 aerial missions against Islamic State targets.

"If there was a consensus from the leadership of the coalition, the kingdom is willing to participate in these efforts because we believe that aerial operations are not the ideal solution and there must be a twin mix of aerial and ground operations," the spokesman stressed.

When asked to comment on the Saudi proposal, US State Department spokesman, John Kirby, said he had not yet seen it, but stressed that the coalition is generally supportive of having partners who contribute more in the fight against IS.

"I would not want to comment specifically on this until we've had a chance to review it," Kirby said at briefing.

The US-led coalition has been carrying out air strikes against Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL) since mid-2014.

Over the course of the operation, US President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that there will be no US boots on the ground in Syria.
Click to expand...

The US will never put troops into Syria, this would mean potential direct conflict with Russia.

Jim Rockford · Feb 11, 2016

Oxymoron said: ↑

The US will never put troops into Syria, this would mean potential direct conflict with Russia.
Click to expand...

KSA is a goner. Nothing but American soldiers and bases all over KSA and neighbors will save them. Their support for terrorists is coming back to pay them. Desperate on their death bed with hey ask those they hate for freedoms to come to their aid again. But there won't be any public support, because KSA is profit driven and rapes the American public with fluctuations in the price of oil. Their only friends are big oil and politicians they bought. Looks like KSA can't fight for itself, and too many remember the same of Vietnam. We lost thousands of American lives fighting a lost cause for people not willing to fight for themselves. Notice the new tactic of arming and training locals? Americans are not coming unless drafted. Good bye backward assed Monarchy, your day has come to use nukes or die.

Ethereal · Feb 12, 2016

Oxymoron said: ↑

The US will never put troops into Syria, this would mean potential direct conflict with Russia.
Click to expand...

The US already has troops in Syria.

AboveAlpha · Feb 12, 2016

Spiritus Libertatis said: ↑

It is literally impossible to hold Assad accountable when you'd have to start and win WW3 to do so.
Click to expand...

Assad will be removed.

Putin will have no choice.

Watch what happens when oil falls to $15 a Barrel.....THEN you will see Putin's true intent.

AboveAlpha

Log in or Sign up

Saudi Arabia ready to take part in any US-led ground operations in Syria

Sly Lampost New Member

Sly Lampost New Member

Silver Surfer Banned

Kisses Banned

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Oxymoron Well-Known Member

Jim Rockford Banned

Ethereal Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Saudi Arabia ready to take part in any US-led ground operations in Syria

Sly Lampost New Member

Sly Lampost New Member

Silver Surfer Banned

Kisses Banned

Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

Oxymoron Well-Known Member

Jim Rockford Banned

Ethereal Well-Known Member

AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches