Donald Trump ends funding of Syrian 'rebels'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zin, Jul 19, 2017.

  1. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #1
    Tremendous if true. Although take with a grain of salt. Story is nothing but anonymous sources.

    Watch Assad suddenly drop another chemical bomb...
     
  2. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #2
    John McCain must feel horrible about his buddies plight.
     
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    way to go, they should have NEVER been armed in the first place.
     
  4. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #4
    Dude, they are total moderates(aka they are not currently fighting against us.)
     
  5. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #5
    Score one for having elected Putin's puppet! Assad gets his country back, Russia gets a new client state, and the rebels all "disappear" with help from government forces (wink, wink). Everybody wins!
     
  6. noekozz macrumors 6502a

    noekozz

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Location:
    212/201
    #6
    That pretty much lays out the agenda for Syria. Dictators FTW.
     
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    pray/say/tell just WTF justified the U.S waging war in Syria?
     
  8. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #8
    The were against removing dictators before they were for removing them.
     
  9. noekozz macrumors 6502a

    noekozz

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Location:
    212/201
    #9
    The US waged war in Syria? In fact under Obama it was the opposite and he's blamed for being ineffective and basically not doing anything, so if there was an official war that we got involved in over there I must have missed that memo. Regardless, all of that is moot since Trump is basically taking the same approach by defunding the rebels against Assad. IMO we should have never gone into the middle east to begin with, and yes that's going back to Bush and his invasion of Iraq.
     
  10. darksithpro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #10

    I'm actually surprised this came from you, as I didn't picture you as a war monger. One of the best things America can do is stop meddling in the affairs of other nations, especially when the coup seems to have come from western friendly entities in the first place. Afghanistan is a perfect example of karma. During the the Soviet invasion the US government trained and armed Afghan rebels to stop the invasion. Now look at where that's got us today. Not good. Also Russia doesn't all of a sudden have a new platform militarily. They've had a naval base there since the early 1970's, so that kind of hyperbole isn't going to stick. Also, lets be honest. America wasn't invited by the ruling government to arm and help, Russia was. The Russians actually have a legitimate reason to be there. Instead of beating the war drums, and trying to help the rebels through proxy, maybe you should be happy that more death and despair will be averted? Never in my life I thought I'd see liberals banging the drums of war...


    President Trump, thanks for doing that. You just made the ME a little more stable today!
     
  11. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #11
    Oh! No, I'm actually fine with backing out of Syria. What I'm not fine with, is saying "rah, rah, we win!" There are very definite costs to be counted whenever you engage in hostilities in a foreign country; but there are also very definite costs to be counted for not engaging in such hostilities. (I am, for example, quite happy that we engaged in WWII on the side of the allies; it made sense both in terms of realpolitik, but also in terms of morality.)

    We shouldn't be cheering about anything involving Syria. The situation there is horrifying. Trying to help them has been a failure, but we must remember not trying to help them also has its own costs. We should be prepared for those costs -- a likely new wave of refugees from Syria (as the inevitable crackdown from Assad progresses through the remaining citizenry), and a strengthening of Russia in the region.

    Oh, I absolutely agree. If we look back far enough, the awful situation in the Mideast was really created when the Entente nations post-WWI decided to start drawing lines all over the map, and establishing their own client countries. These artificially constructed nations had to be held together by force, as they had no other reason to exist; thus, authoritarian rulers became the norm, even as the countries eventually gained their freedom from their colonizers.

    But that left the artificial and unstable borders throughout the region. You really only needed to topple over one authoritarian government, and the whole structure of the Mideast would begin to collapse. Enter onto the stage one George W. Bush, who for pretty much no reason at all decided to topple the government of Saddam Hussein. We never did manage to set up any kind of stable government in Iraq after that, and the ripples of instability led directly to the uprisings of the Arab Spring all across the region.

    So yes, Syria is, at least in part, our own fault. And don't make the mistake of assuming that the earthquake in the Mideast is over; with external powers like the US and Russia now trying to rebuild the same artificial, unstable borders as before, it's only a matter of time before the next Arab Spring erupts. :(
     
  12. darksithpro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #12

    Yup. If it was up to me, all the ME countries would be ruled by secular Dictators. It seems to be the only way they stay stable. Once you liberate them and try to install a democratic government it always seems to fail, and turns into a terrorist **** hole.
     
  13. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #13
    Finally,there are no moderate terrorists,we should be bombing them,not arming them.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    A deeper read of the modern Middle East should tell you that dictators don't create stability, and that support of guys like Assad comes with consequences for the U.S.

    Iran might be the most pointed example.
     
  15. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #15
    Honestly, I believe that there needs to be a regional revolution of some sort. Fundamentally, the Arab Spring was the right idea; it really did involve local peoples rising up to try and gain rights for themselves. It just didn't have enough support to deal with all the external pressures -- the tentacles of Iran and Saudi Arabia trying to control the entire region for themselves, the forces of the US, Russia, and other external players trying to maintain their supplies of oil -- there's just not much that the native population can do to overcome that much force.

    Waves of refugees fleeing lands with no freedom and no future are, I'm afraid, to be expected for many years to come...
     
  16. darksithpro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #16
    They are not secular.
     
  17. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #17
    Well,when the alternative is hardline Islamists who want to turn the clock back to 7th century a secular dictator like Assad doesn't look too bad.
     
  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #18
    You need to look up the history of U.S. and Iran before 1979.
     
  19. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #19
    Actually, Iran is remarkably stable, and seems to have arrived at a method of rule which is, more or less, supported by its own citizenry. They are certainly trying to make underhanded political moves in the region, and are even supporting militia forces all over the place; but then, that's what we've been doing too.

    Their experiments with popular elections has been, well, limited; but it also hasn't blown up in their faces, as has happened in many other regions of the Mideast. I've gotta say, I kinda expect that Iran as it stands now will probably outlast other nations of the Mideast, unless toppled by some external force (like the US).
     
  20. darksithpro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #20

    The day Reagan was sworn in was the day they stopped their BS hostage crap. It's a little early to call Trump another Reagan, but I believe he's got the balls to be the next one. Lead from the front, not from behind. Be firm, with a strong military, while also being diplomatic.
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    Sure, but that's a strapped chicken. Of course, I'd support Assad over ISIS—and whatever whack job Wahhabist that sends them money—but that doesn't mean that supporting Assad—or one of the other dictators—is such a good idea. The U.S. has largely played the Great Game in the Middle East by supporting dictators, with the Soviets supporting their own.

    And, as a consequence, the Middle East has not stabilized or liberalized. There are complicated reasons for this. For one, while Iran is a relatively modern country run by a theocratic government, we constantly lock horns with them while supporting Saudi Arabia, which is mainly run by theocrats who once supported Al Qaeda, and now funnel money to ISIS.
     
  22. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #22
    This is false.
    The Arab spring uprising originated in North Africa. Tunisia to be exact.
    The uprising had nothing to do with what was happening in the ME.
    It was a brought about by rampant unemployment and political restrictions setup by the government of Tunisia.
    The citizens finally had enough and threw out the government. They now have a new constitution and a as of 2015 they have a secular government.

    Egypt uprising was inspired by the Tunisia uprising, again... nothing to do with the ME.
    Egypt had it rough as they went through major swings in political ideology in running the country.
    The latest modified constitution now bans any political parties based on religious beliefs.

    Libya... same thing. Inspired by Tunisia and Egypt anti government uprising, the Libyans went after Gaddafi and started a 3 year civil war.
    Libya is finally starting to get some semblance of a central government. Again... nothing to do with the ME.
     
  23. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #23
    trump has the balls? he is able to be diplomatic? are we talking about the same trump?
     
  24. yaxomoxay macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    In 1953, the United States and Britain conducted Operation Ajax, organizing a coup against Mohammed Mossadeq, which eventually deposed the prime minister, and put into place the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. This was largely due to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize the country's oil and gas industries.

    The Shah remained in power, despite increasing signs of his unpopularity, until the revolution of 1979, when he was deposed by mixture of students, modernists, and Islamists, and the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini came into power.

    That's what I'm referring to.

    Actually, the Carter administration did all the hard work when it came to the release of the hostages, and Reagan delayed their release until he was sworn in so he could take all the credit.

    And, of course, the lesson remains unlearned. Had the United States not deposed Mossadeq and supported the Shah, the Islamists may never have gained power in Iran. And, rather than an enemy, we would have had a strong ally in the region. This also meant that we could have supported Iran when the Iraq-Iran War began, and wouldn't have fueled Saddam Hussein's regime.

    Which means we wouldn't have toppled him in 2003, and therefore no Iraq War and no ISIS. (Not to mention the Arab Spring and the civil war in Syria.)

    Of course, something else might have happened, making all this moot, but our support for the Shah hurt out relationship with Iran and led to the 1979 crisis.
     

Share This Page