US Officially Ends Its Support for "Moderate" Syrian Rebels

Another good decision by the president.
He is doing a good job.

Who knows what Clinton would have done in this region.
 
Tough to criticize one way or the other. Trump doesn't want to arm the next generation of extremists that we'll likely end up fighting over there. At the same time, he has set himself (and the USA) in opposition to Assad, continuing a tradition held by the past two administrations, at least, so it's not like we'll be installing a secular strongman on his coattails. Without our help, the rebels will slowly be ground into the dust by Assad.

No good answers.
Why does our help have to come in the form of guns and money? I think the US should be trying to broker a peace deal between Assad and the elements of the opposition that aren't jihadist extremists like the Kurds, specifically something that would allow the Kurds and the rebels allied with them in Rojova to keep at least some of their autonomy. Something like that would be a more positive intervention than trying to tip the scales of the stalemate slightly this way or that way.
 
Why does our help have to come in the form of guns and money? I think the US should be trying to broker a peace deal between Assad and the elements of the opposition that aren't jihadist extremists like the Kurds, specifically something that would allow the Kurds and the rebels allied with them in Rojova to keep at least some of their autonomy. Something like that would be a more positive intervention than trying to tip the scales of the stalemate slightly this way or that way.
The problem though is the Kurds want essentially Kurdistan.. which covers parts of Syria, Iraq, and Iran I think, to be it's own nation.. Something that the Syrians, Iraqis, and Iranians DO NOT want is my understanding.

It's too much of a "my way or the highway" between those groups.
 
This is also symbolic horseshit. They need to give the appearance of continuously going after Iran otherwise they will get the Zionist lobby up their ass.

There is a major difference between :

- Iran-backed Hamas / Hezbollah - type terrorism (which by most account is armed resistance)......and:

- Sunni fanatism/Djihad such as ISIS / Al Qaeda.

Israel succeeded in getting Hezbollah recognised as a terrorist group around 2000, and since then all lines are blurred, but this is propaganda.

Make no mistake, Hezbollah is not sponsoring terrorist acts in european capitals.
Well there was this incident but in general I agree with your overall point. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization but to me there's a qualitative difference between them and Al Qaeda in terms of how they choose their targets and their focus and whatnot. And overall I would say Hezbollah and the Shiite groups seem to present far less of a threat to the West than the Sunni extremists.
The problem though is the Kurds want essentially Kurdistan.. which covers parts of Syria, Iraq, and Iran I think, to be it's own nation.. Something that the Syrians, Iraqis, and Iranians DO NOT want is my understanding.

It's too much of a "my way or the highway" between those groups.
I understand that but as I said I think for now simply getting autonomy for the Syrian Kurds from Assad is all the US can do. Even still the neighboring countries with Kurdish populations would be resistant to this because they'd see it as emboldening the Kurds in their quest for all of Kurdistan. Turkey in particular would be committed to stopping that slippery slope but I like to think the Syrian Kurds would be smart enough to take the bird in the hand over the two in the bush and just accept autonomy within Syria as enough.
 
This is a good thing.

There is alot of videos on the subject one could post. I like this one because its a democrat making the points, and as such hopefully its not just brushed aside. The relevant info is @ 3:20 to the end, though I would suggest watching the video in its entirety.
Paints a pretty different picture then what we are usually told imo.

Rep Tulsi is fine....
 
Why does our help have to come in the form of guns and money? I think the US should be trying to broker a peace deal between Assad and the elements of the opposition that aren't jihadist extremists like the Kurds, specifically something that would allow the Kurds and the rebels allied with them in Rojova to keep at least some of their autonomy. Something like that would be a more positive intervention than trying to tip the scales of the stalemate slightly this way or that way.
Syrian Kurds are PKK backed and are the Kurdish people that Turkey wanted us least to back. They would probably put up some serious resistance to even giving them autonomous zones.
 
Syrian Kurds are PKK backed and are the Kurdish people that Turkey wanted us least to back. They would probably put up some serious resistance to even giving them autonomous zones.
They would most likely be the country that would be msot outspoken against such a deal and unfortunately being neighbors you gotta figure they'd be incentivized to sabotage such a deal. But if something could be worked out between the great powers like the US and Russia and the regional actors like the Shiite axis in Syria-Iran-Hezbollah then hopefully that would be enough.

Of course I'm speaking in wide generalities here. There would probably have to be a multitude of concessions towards Assad, Iran, and/or Putin and some sort of assurance for Turkey and Iran about the Kurdish question for something like this to even be remotely possible. But I think that's a better strategy long term than funding rebels. Just because its a bit of a mess of a situation doesn't mean we should kick the Kurdistan can down the road indefinitely.
 
I understand that but as I said I think for now simply getting autonomy for the Syrian Kurds from Assad is all the US can do. Even still the neighboring countries with Kurdish populations would be resistant to this because they'd see it as emboldening the Kurds in their quest for all of Kurdistan. Turkey in particular would be committed to stopping that slippery slope but I like to think the Syrian Kurds would be smart enough to take the bird in the hand over the two in the bush and just accept autonomy within Syria as enough.
But do the Kurds in geographic Syria consider themselves to be "Syrian Kurds" as you described or consider themselves to be Kurdish (which I feel is more likely) and as such part of a larger whole.
 
But do the Kurds in geographic Syria consider themselves to be "Syrian Kurds" as you described or consider themselves to be Kurdish (which I feel is more likely) and as such part of a larger whole.
I'm sure its a mix of both. Having to live in Syria for decades is likely going to create some specificity in that Kurdish population but that's not necessarily going to overshadow Kurdish solidarity more generally. But whatever the case may be I would imagine that the Kurds in Syria would see autonomy from Assad as a victory of some sort and goal worth fighting for even if its not the Kurdistan they dream of.

For both the Kurds and the Palestinians I suspect holding out for the perfect homeland could prevent them from accepting smaller concessions that would drastically improve the quality of life of the people living within those territories.
 
I'm sure its a mix of both. Having to live in Syria for decades is likely going to create some specificity in that Kurdish population but that's not necessarily going to overshadow Kurdish solidarity more generally. But whatever the case may be I would imagine that the Kurds in Syria would see autonomy from Assad as a victory of some sort and goal worth fighting for even if its not the Kurdistan they dream of.

For both the Kurds and the Palestinians I suspect holding out for the perfect homeland could prevent them from accepting smaller concessions that would drastically improve the quality of life of the people living within those territories.
I have a friend that is a Kurd (family came to the States when he was a baby) that is in private contracting work (sort of shit the guys at Benghazi did) and he said his understanding is the Kurds want to be their own separate country all their own and that, according to him, when Europe chopped up the Ottoman Empire post WWI they knew of this and purposely chopped the Kurds into 3 separate countries because of this.

How true that is, I don't know, but that's his take on the matter.

I personally don't think you'll ever see the Palestinians get their own country and I also don't think you'll ever see Israel lose the borders that Israel recognizes. Frankly, the 1963 border requirement some people want from them I think is ridiculous. It makes the distance east to west in one section of the country almost smaller than fucking Rhode Island... like, Aaron Rodgers MIGHT be able to throw a football across it (I know he wouldn't but that's just me trying to highlight how small it is).
 
I have a friend that is a Kurd (family came to the States when he was a baby) that is in private contracting work (sort of shit the guys at Benghazi did) and he said his understanding is the Kurds want to be their own separate country all their own and that, according to him, when Europe chopped up the Ottoman Empire post WWI they knew of this and purposely chopped the Kurds into 3 separate countries because of this.

How true that is, I don't know, but that's his take on the matter.
Of course they want their own country ust like the Palestinians do. But what I;m saying is that's not likely in the shrot to medium term and that accepting concessions from Assad for autonomy is something they might accept. Actually they've written it into the constitution of Rojova that they're not an independent state but rather an autonomous zone within Syria so the Kurds on the ground over there are being pragmatic in their practice. They've made it a de facto reality, I think the US should try to turn that de facto reality into a de jure one.
I personally don't think you'll ever see the Palestinians get their own country and I also don't think you'll ever see Israel lose the borders that Israel recognizes. Frankly, the 1963 border requirement some people want from them I think is ridiculous. It makes the distance east to west in one section of the country almost smaller than fucking Rhode Island... like, Aaron Rodgers MIGHT be able to throw a football across it (I know he wouldn't but that's just me trying to highlight how small it is).
So because you don't think Aaron Rodgers should be able to throw a football across Israel Palestinians shouldn't get their own state....okay I guess.
 
Its a great move. We've been arming rebels since 60's. Today's "moderate rebels" in need of arms always turn into tomorrows well-armed oppressive regime.
 
Of course they want their own country ust like the Palestinians do. But what I;m saying is that's not likely in the shrot to medium term and that accepting concessions from Assad for autonomy is something they might accept. Actually they've written it into the constitution of Rojova that they're not an independent state but rather an autonomous zone within Syria so the Kurds on the ground over there are being pragmatic in their practice. They've made it a de facto reality, I think the US should try to turn that de facto reality into a de jure one.
And that's going to be hard. I want to see the Kurds have their own place but feel like if the US forces the issue it'll blow up in our face

Kafir-kun said:
So because you don't think Aaron Rodgers should be able to throw a football across Israel Palestinians shouldn't get their own state....okay I guess.
I didn't say that... I just said I think trying to use the 1963 borders is barking up the wrong tree and an impossible request from a security stand point.
 
And that's going to be hard. I want to see the Kurds have their own place but feel like if the US forces the issue it'll blow up in our face
But we're not really forcing it. As I said the autonomy of Rojova is a de facto reality, I'm simply saying the US should act to broker a peace deal that enshrines that de facto reality into law.

I didn't say that... I just said I think trying to use the 1963 borders is barking up the wrong tree and an impossible request from a security stand point.
There's really no other viable blueprint for a Palestinian state as far as I know. You think going back to the 1967 borders makes Israel too small but what's the implication of that for the Palestinians? That they have to accept having their land taken from them by illegal settlement building? That there exist no viable Palestinian state? You can't just say the solution doesn't, allow the status quo of illegal encroachment and occupation to continue, and then expect the Palestinians to accept it lying down.
 
Probably just a move to force the "true moderates" to come over to the SDF, which the US still arms and supports and has more leverage and influence over. The remaining jihadis get wrecked and then Assad and friends will have to negotiate with the SDF and US to end the conflict.
 
So the Dems definitely were helping the bad, I mean, terror, oops I mean, moderate rebels afterall.

But that same article says other military branches have something going on with rebels and they still helping.
 
Well there was this incident but in general I agree with your overall point. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization but to me there's a qualitative difference between them and Al Qaeda in terms of how they choose their targets and their focus and whatnot. And overall I would say Hezbollah and the Shiite groups seem to present far less of a threat to the West than the Sunni extremists.

I understand that but as I said I think for now simply getting autonomy for the Syrian Kurds from Assad is all the US can do. Even still the neighboring countries with Kurdish populations would be resistant to this because they'd see it as emboldening the Kurds in their quest for all of Kurdistan. Turkey in particular would be committed to stopping that slippery slope but I like to think the Syrian Kurds would be smart enough to take the bird in the hand over the two in the bush and just accept autonomy within Syria as enough.

Was Assad even bad to his Kurds?
 
Back
Top