Need a cliff notes outline of Syria situation

[gatoveintisiete]

I disconnected from paying attention years ago, why did we get involved, what was the result, and what kind of shitstorm does 45 face?

[gatoveintisiete]

Emphasis on cliff notes, no article links or page long diatribes please, not interested in reading mountains of garbage here.

[wetwillie]

I think we half assed some funding of some rebel groups a few years back.

[CNS]

Whats Allepo?

[Brock Landers]

It's a disaster, according to some guy that likes to say disaster a lot.

That seems like more of a bullet point than a cliff note tho.

[star seed 7]

Why don't we use nuclear weapons if we have them?

[TheHamburglar]

Why don't we use nuclear weapons if we have them?

Turn wide areas into glass should always be at least in the top 3 options.

[sonofdaxjones]

Syria may be one of the stupidest foreign policy moves ever.

Relative to the United States alone, let's just say that the NYT's (when they actually do real reporting and practice real journalism) concluded a few years ago that every group the US was supporting in trying to overthrow Assad was embedded with theocratic zealots.    At one time "rebel" groups armed by the CIA were fighting rebel groups armed by the DOD.

That's pretty much all you need to know in terms of what a complete CF it is.

[star seed 7]

Nyt? That's fake news! What's infowars have to say about it?

[renocat]

Civil war.  Brutal like all civil wars.  A side is trying to win at all cost.  War is killing.  Rebels are hiding in populated areas.  War.is not.precision.  our own civil war was horrendous.  Why should be.expect anything different elsewhere?

[CNS]

Syria is lose lose for us.  Either help a sadamesque leader maintain power or feed money and weapons to one or more multiples of groups that are all small step (s) away from being sympathetic to another group we are currently at war with.  And that is all before even considering the Russia angle.

We lose less by doing nothing.

[gatoveintisiete]

Syria may be one of the stupidest foreign policy moves ever.

Relative to the United States alone, let's just say that the NYT's (when they actually do real reporting and practice real journalism) concluded a few years ago that every group the US was supporting in trying to overthrow Assad was embedded with theocratic zealots.    At one time "rebel" groups armed by the CIA were fighting rebel groups armed by the DOD.

That's pretty much all you need to know in terms of what a complete CF it is.

looks like I could have saved some time and just pm'd Dax.  Thanks bud, mods you can close this one out now.

[sonofdaxjones]

Nyt? That's fake news! What's infowars have to say about it?

Weird post (but LOL in the middle of a online NYT news article, was a fake news headline the other day . . . Alec Baldwin is dead FYI).

[MakeItRain]

Well the president of the country bombed hospitals and dax referred to this as the people being liberated, so there's that.

[sonofdaxjones]

Well the president of the country bombed hospitals and dax referred to this as the people being liberated, so there's that.

We bombed guys who were fighting ISIS in Syria.   Of course you won't answer the question as to why the eff we (and our proxies) are trying to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation in the first place.   By implication, you're saying that the people trying to overthrow the government are good people, when in fact they're thugs who have committed countless numbers of atrocities in their own right.   If the Assad regime is toppled, Syria will be an even bigger bloodbath then it is now and will likely lead to either years of additional sectarian violence between rival Islamic groups, or likely lead to a highly theocratic (like tossing gay people off of rooftops) government being installed into power.     

[MakeItRain]

Well the president of the country bombed hospitals and dax referred to this as the people being liberated, so there's that.

We bombed guys who were fighting ISIS in Syria.   Of course you won't answer the question as to why the eff we (and our proxies) are trying to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation in the first place.   By implication, you're saying that the people trying to overthrow the government are good people, when in fact they're thugs who have committed countless numbers of atrocities in their own right.   If the Assad regime is toppled, Syria will be an even bigger bloodbath then it is now and will likely lead to either years of additional sectarian violence between rival Islamic groups, or likely lead to a highly theocratic (like tossing gay people off of rooftops) government being installed into power.   

I'm not answering that question because it is 100% irrelevant to what I care about. The "war" is comprised of the Syrian government killing a bunch of women and children because they can't exactly pin down who the enemy is. On Wednesday when the Turkish government freed 3000 women and children from Aleppo the Syrian government fired on the caravan. I don't give two shits about whether or not Assad defeats ISIS, I mean I did care until Assad determined genocide was the key to victory. You're talking politics as if there's a correct answer, I don't care about politics, I care about the humanitarian crisis in Syria.

[gatoveintisiete]

Amaze

[gatoveintisiete]

Yeah, I guess I don't really care who brought about this humanitarian crisis either Dax, its about the women and children now.....

[MakeItRain]

Yeah, I guess I don't really care who brought about this humanitarian crisis either Dax, its about the women and children now.....

Blame who you want, I don't give a crap.

[sonofdaxjones]

Classic, so now it's about the women and children.  Yeah who gave a eff when all the women and children were dying back when Obama, Leon P and Hillary glommed all over the Arab Spring movement in Syria and decided to use proxies and the CIA to overthrow the Syrian regime creating the "greatest humanitarian crisis since WWII".   

Yet here we are, not one serious movement by the Obama administration to bring peace, only talk of making sure the government (that's a Russian ally) gets overthrown.   But hey, now all of sudden the resident libs are "worried about the women and children" after 5 rough ridin' years.

[gatoveintisiete]

Has a political party ever been more exposed and humiliated in our nations history?

[MakeItRain]

I mean I don't know about the other "libs" you speak of, but on this blog the only Syria conversations I can remember are ones when people are talking about the humanitarian angle then you thunder in with some long winded partisan rant filled with dax catchphrases.

I see your frustration that no one will engage the political conversation though. The closest I'll get is to say unfortunately there is no right answer. There's nothing the United States, Russia, or the UN can do to fix this. Best solution is for Assad to get assassinated and hope that there is a Democratic election that doesn't elect another murderous despot or that allows ISIS to control Syria.

[114Hickory]

We tend to pick and choose when to be humanitarian and the decision-point is usually an economic one.   

[MakeItRain]

We tend to pick and choose when to be humanitarian and the decision-point is usually an economic one.   

Historical precedent does not support this.

[114Hickory]

We tend to pick and choose when to be humanitarian and the decision-point is usually an economic one.   

Historical precedent does not support this.

How has the U.S. provided real humanitarian aid in an equitable way even in the last 100 years?  How many humanitarian crises exist and have existed that are simply outside of our frame of reference because there is little or no economic interest in the people/country experiencing crisis?  I would add, political expedience and motivation are part and parcel of the economic interests.  How does the U.S. choose whom to provide with aid? 

I would like to hear your ideas as to how we haven't historically chosen when to be humanitarian based on economic interests (and I know I'm late adding political/geopolitical interests).  I'm asking seriously because I can learn in the process.  Maybe it's cynical of me but I think the U.S. government is most bipartisan when it comes to provision of aid.  We tend not to do it unless it benefits us in some discernable way, short- or long-term.  Social Exchange Theory at its best.  And I believe this is not unique to the U.S.