The Islamic State, Assad, and the Contradictions Faced by the US in Syria

[Rajoo]

Sounds either too logical or requires mass migrations to create monolithic regions. As constituted, there seems to be no tolerance or desire to co-exist.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

He has some big shoes to fill.

Teehee!

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by nailer

Why not ignore Assad for the short term? I'd bet the Arab coalition is willing to bomb ISIS positions in what was formally Baathist Syria without consulting him. The next step in this strategy would be liberating the Kurdish areas from ISIS, with the ultimate goal being Kurdistan unification. This would weaken ISIS and reinforce other anti ISIS efforts.

Indeed we should return Kurdistan to the Kurds assuming Syria,Turkey, Iraq and Iran are willing to surrender the parts they stole.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Obama's new foreign policy.

ROTFLMAO!

If both parties do a certain thing regardless of what they say, the leaders of both parties agree on what we should actually be doing, again, regardless of the bather they feed their constituencies.

Pete

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

ROTFLMAO!

If both parties do a certain thing regardless of what they say, the leaders of both parties agree on what we should actually be doing, again, regardless of the bather they feed their constituencies.

Pete

Very idealistic but reality is that elections roll around every two years, fund raising the first year and campaigning the second. Where is the time to compromise and govern. Each party is fighting for control of one or both houses every election and it is political war.

[Dondilion]

I suspect the training of this free Syrian force is essentially to aim at ISIS and
to ignore Assad. Assad is not nuclear and has given up his chemicals.

The US should learn by now to look very carefully at regime change in the area.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Very idealistic but reality is that elections roll around every two years, fund raising the first year and campaigning the second. Where is the time to compromise and govern. Each party is fighting for control of one or both houses every election and it is political war.

I'm sorry, I'm not clear. My post is not idealistic. It shows how they (both parties for the record) constantly lie to us. If they both actually do something, even if they say it's wrong, they do indeed agree in private.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Don, the moderate rebels are: Ta Da! Muslim Brotherhood. Bet Egypt LOVES that.

I think Assad is finished anyway.

Pete

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I'm sorry, I'm not clear. My post is not idealistic. It shows how they (both parties for the record) constantly lie to us. If they both actually do something, even if they say it's wrong, they do indeed agree in private.

Pete

My post was meant to imply that members of both parties are afraid that they will not get reelected if they quit the lying and tell the truth. As to actually working together, the GOP candidates further risk getting primaried.

So it's all about and only about winning elections. Anything beyond is idealistic IMO.

[piece-itpete]

Oh I see what'cha mean. Funny world were it makes sense an awful thing can be idealistic

Wouldn't it be amazing if one of our leaders where to actually try to educate the public they're supposedly leading? Now there's some starry-eyed idealism

Pete