(lurkers please click on my screenname to see my FR homepage for more information)
I’d support him enough to keep the war going on.
Picture Lurch shaking his head and going, “ooooooohhhhhh”
“Looks like the US is effectively supporting Assad”
That would be easier to believe if Assad didn’t want us OUT of Syria.
Not a fan of Chuck. I watched his videos for a while but he said too many things that lead me to believe he definitely had an agenda, beyond informing people. Not sure what the agenda was but he said too many things too many times that just were too wrong to be simply off base by accident.
War makes strange bedfellows
Chuck appears to be very confused (and not just about this event, he struggled through the entire video). The Iran-backed Hashd al Shaabi militia we are attacking are going into Syria to SUPPORT Assad, not oppose him. We are bombing them not because we support overthrowing Assad (we do), but because this same militia on occasion attacks US forces. Hashd al Shaabi, aka PMU, passing anywhere near our guys is a threat, and we don't want them establishing a presence in the area we have troops stationed.
We finance EVERYONE in the region! The trick is going to be able to continue to arm all sides and produce those bloated MIC profits after it’s proven to be overpriced junk in Ukraine and here in Syria.
If you’ve got the money, you can go to the track and hit the “all” button on every race. You always pick a winner!
Can we arm both sides and just protect the Christians?
Never should there be one drop of American blood shed for Syria.
Quite the opposite
Last I read we were killing Iraqi shia who entered Syria to fight sunni islamist radicals ( think al-Qaeda and worse) who are being termed as “ rebels” vs the elected Assad govt and Syrian army. Essentially we are clearing the way for an islamist caliphate in the belief this will contain the expansion of Iran/shia.
We have no real morally justifiable reason to be in Syria much less killing people who do not want to live under an al-Qaeda regime and trying to use kurds as a proxy.
Imho.
Who Are the Rebels Leading the Offensive in Syria?
The group now advancing, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, says it wants to replace the Assad government with one inspired by Islamic principles.
Mr. al-Assad’s international backers, including Russia, Iran and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, are weakened, distracted by wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Lebanon, making it an opportune moment for the Syrian rebels to attack.
Analysts said the rebels needed at least a tacit go-ahead from Turkey, which has been frustrated that talks with Mr. al-Assad about the return of Syrian refugees in Turkey have stalled. Looking for leverage in negotiations and perhaps territory to push refugees into, the analysts said, Turkey most likely encouraged the rebels to move.
https://archive.ph/6oaxw#selection-4561.0-4565.133
Retiring diplomat says defense officials misled Trump on troop count in Syria
Why???
On which side? With our rebels we created and supplied, or against them?
Syria was perfectly fine under Alawite control. Then came Obama and his Arab spring.
When the uprising started, it was originally led by some moderates (a Syrian Colonel was their leader) who we backed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army#:~:text=The%20Free%20Syrian%20Army%20(FSA,from%20the%20Syrian%20Armed%20Forces.
As the war raged on and they started running out of people, some very shady (radical Muslim types) began joining the fight and were being backed by us, as part of the Free Syrian Army (we tried hard to suppress this in the msm).
The Turks of course want a piece of the pie (Syria) as well, and the Kurd's have wanted a Kurdistan for the longest time (ain't happening, the Turks will never allow such). But we sort of protect the Kurd's to a degree (i.e. the Turks can't go all out after them).
You have this weird mix of groups that aren't entirely on the same sheet of music fighting against Assad.
Syria was a formal Russian ally since the 1970s. Assad's father was installed by the Soviets, like we installed Mr. Z in Ukraine. Russia and before that the Soviet Union has naval and air bases there for over 50 years now. We have been expanding our influence in the Middle East and North Africa for about 2 decades now (more bases in the region, vastly expanded intel operations, invading or sponsoring coups in Libya, Syria, Iraq), with WMD being the excuse for our intervention in Syria 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
Win some, lose some... We have gained ground in Syria of late, but lost ground or influence in Chad, Nigeria, Niger, and Sudan.
Nigeria: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czkk7g1vj31o
Niger: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-niger-base-russian-military-personnel-niamey-africa-russia/ (poking us in the eye as they boot us)
Chad: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-19/chad-asks-us-troops-to-cease-operations-at-strategic-army-base and https://www.reuters.com/world/some-us-troops-set-depart-chad-least-temporarily-2024-04-25/
All of these nations are in a struggle over who they are aligned with, the US or Russia. All are “significant” oil producing nations or have a key strategic value in terms of location etc: https://spendmenot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/oil-production-by-country-1-1.png
The era of the proxy conflict/war is back.
We are in a global struggle over who has control of the worlds energy reserves at this point. Russia has about 1/3 control, and we control about 2/3rds and we're trying to expand that, i.e. Iraq (2003), Syria (2014), Libya (2011), Venezuela (2020 - continuous).
