I dont get the U.S. over Syria.

Someone please explain the U.S. reasoning in Syria. Russia wants to help Assad defeat the ISIS rebels there and we want to stop them? Now I know Russia is hardly being altruistic, but (*)(*)(*)(*) they want to fight ISIS. So the West is more willing to accept a refugee invasion of perhaps millions of unknowns over allowing Russia to take the helm and crush ISIS from Syria? Do any of you have any perspective on this?

 

I think it's 2 things. One is Russia will come out looking like a champion because the administration has little US support for taking out Assad. Second, it gets in the way. The administration wants Assad out and wanted ISIS to do it. Unfortunately, they made their own plans and took lots of our hardware to carry it out. So if Russia stops ISIS, the WH won't get its way and Assad will still be in power. And to confound it, Russia will come away the hero for doing what most people think needs to be done about ISIS.

 

I'm fine with keeping Russia at bay, but at the cost of millions of refugees? The cry of any one in the Middle East and northern Africa looking to get into Western countries is now I'm Syrian! I mean the obvious answer for stability is defeat ISIS. The folly just seems legion to me.

 

I personally think ISIS has been a pawn of the US all along. One of these days it'll be their defeat through which we gain physical access to nations we didn't previously have access to, or to gain monetary/economic/natural resource control over in some form, likely IMF/World Bank loans and guarantees. It looks too intentional and the fight against it too weak to be anything but. We'll take the fight to ISIS "in any land where they reside" and that'll seal the deal for air power and invasion wherever we want, which will probably be wherever the most resources are. Or maybe I'm just cynical.

 

ISIS works for the CIA, theyre there to kill assad, like they killed kaddafi

 

I don't disregard conspiracy theories out right, but I also use Occman's Razor, but there's assumptions everywhere to make sense of the Syrian situation.

 

Many people are confused. I think this is probably the best explanation of what is behind U.S foreign policy. There is not much difference between the neocons and liberal interventionists. They believe in the regime change mantra no matter the consequences.

How Neoconservatives Destabilized Europe
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32687-how-neoconservatives-destabilized-europe

A War on Assad

 

So you assume this is just some covert ww3 playing out? If true I don't see how it can stay covert forever. One day the word proxy will be removed from the phrase proxy war.

 

Isolating and destabilizing Syria has been on the Israeli and neocon agenda since 1996... so are you for or against that?

 

ISIS is organic .. being born out of our war on Iraq and the installation of the Iranian poser Maliki. Controlling Iran's natural resources (or oilfields) is a neocon delusion. Syria has no natural resources and no oil.. but they are on the Clean Break Strategy list to be isolated and destabilized. Didn't quite work out as the Israelis envisioned it.

 

So the Obama admin is Neo-Con?

 

That is because we are all getting the mushroom treatment.

The battle over Syria and to depose Assad is because Qatar wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Syria to reach customers in Europe. Russia naturally doesn't favor that, and that is what the entire mess in this region is really over. Those that want the pipeline and those that don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

Turkey wants it that is why Turkey wants Assad out. Now the area is devastated and 100's of Thousands of refugees are fleeing the carnage, God help us, what a mess we have stood by, "lead from behind" and allowed to develop and get so completely out of control that we will ultimately have to step in. How many times do we have to learn this lesson, the lesson of why the US must remain engaged internationally.

 

When you set something in motion, its sometimes impossible to stop.. Israel bombed Syria a few years back so there's no question that their paranoia increased.. We blew up Iraq so increased Iran's power exponentially.

More later.. gotta run.

 

Please answer the question it is a simple one.

 

Actually its our involvement that caused this.....

 

I understand. This tells a lot of why I'm suspicious. [video=youtube;nUCwCgthp_E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E[/video]

- - - Updated - - -

Why would I support it and why is that relevant?

 

ISIS isn't organic. It didn't magically happen, regardless of what the maintstream media would portray. They've been funded, trained and supported directly to help remove Assad. They went a bit rogue, but they didn't just happen. Every country we destabilize has something we're after, even if it's not resources. Sometimes it is to move our business into their nation at their expense, sometimes it's to give loans via IMF or World Bank that a nation can't possibly repay. Sometimes it is to remove a financial system and force upon a nation a western system of money (see Iraq and Libya). Have you ever read John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"? It would help enlighten many actions taken around the world.

 

They are liberal interventionists. However there are number of the neocons who are involved in the foreign policies. McCain and Nuland for example.

 

Have you seen Syria? Assad has turned it to rubble.
If the Russians want to get sucked into the ME quagmire, they should go for it.
Maybe they'll also rebuild Syria so refugees could return where they want to be.

 

I don't think people realize the actual price for always engaging every international threat. I believe a lot of things we have to do on an international level bring us to situations where security is needed over what Americans call freedom. Let's face it, America spends far more and deploys far more than any other nation in the world and here we are in 2015.

 

I don't think they are that stupid. They just want to protect the part which is not destroyed. The great city of Damascus and the coastline cities. The rest of it will be rebuilt by others. There is no way that Syria will ever be unified country after this brutal civil war. I can foresee partitioning the country into three different entities. Some sort of loose confederation.

 

Fighting western backed *rebels* will do that....

 

Russia seems like they do want to get involved, for whatever reason, and fight ISIS. The West seems to be in opposition of that, and I can't really figure why besides a high-school mentality or conspiracy theories.

 

I truly wish we could retreat from the global stage and have things work out, I really do. We as a nation always had an isolated foreign policy. Then in WWI we mobilized to stop the Germans, we then disengaged and resumed our historic isolation, then Europe completely screwed up the postwar, which we papered over with checkbook diplomacy until we entered the Great Depression, had to withdraw our checkbook diplomacy and then the world exploded into a second world war.

So after WWII remained engaged, rebuilt Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and held the line against an expansionist Soviet Union. War weary, Obama first tried his "Arab Spring" thing, reproached Iran, sacked Libya, did who knows what with Syria, withdrew from Iraq, and the area is exploding into a mass humanitarian crisis building to a mass that I believe will soon dwarf anything we have seen in our lifetimes. I believe it will overwhelm Europe, we will be faced with either mass catastrophe or mass influx of refugees and then come full circle, we are better off trying to ensure their security in their homeland than trying to incorporate the mass of refugees into our country, because I do not believe we will stand by and watch them die or be slaughtered.

I wish isolation and "lead from behind" worked, but it doesn't look to me like it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah right. So our complete withdrawal should fix it. How is that working out?

 

But the U.S. hasn't been disengaged from the world in any type of isolationist sense. Have you seen the map of U.S. military bases around the world? Even in Iraq we still have a presence. This idea that America pulled back from the world and all hell broke loose is nonsense. Is ISIS that unreasonable response by already religious fanatics plus Western policies? I don't buy this idea that American isolationism caused any of this.