Posted on 12/17/2016 3:39:34 AM PST by DoodleDawg
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said on Friday his administration would build "safe zones" to try to help civilians trapped in Syria's bloody conflict, an idea that President Barack Obama said would be too hard to enforce.
Mr Trump and Mr Obama spoke separately of the conflict after efforts to evacuate civilians from the city of Aleppo ground to a halt on Friday after weeks of bombardments by the Syrian army.
"We're going to try and patch that up and we're going to try and help people," said Mr Trump, who takes over from Obama on Jan. 20.
"We're going to build safe zones," he told supporters at a rally in Florida. "We're going to get the Gulf States to pay for the safe zones."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I would agree with that but that doesn't seem to be what Trump is saying.
a refugee camp in their own country, keeping them there at a lower cost to taxpayers, rather than here. Assad will co operate, and so will russia, as it will help end the war and leave Assad in power.
Yeah. In our country we have to explain to incoming refugees that sexual assault is wrong, unacceptable, and illegal.
We put him in.
I think if we stop meddling in Syria things will take care of themselves. Our meddling could be what’s protracting the conflict.
I think the Saudis have plenty of land and cash for building some Syrian safe zones.
IIRC, Kerry told the people to leave a month ago via some temp agreement with Putin.
I don’t know how he’s going to make & keep safe zones without American soldiers being there and therefore exposed to being killed
Get out of the Obama weeds and you can figure it out as well. Shhhhhh, it has nothing to do with US ground troops creating them. Don’t tell anyone else.
“Assad and the Syrian arab army are the safe zone”
Tell that to the Syrians who’ve been attacked from the air. It wasn’t IS doing that.
>>”Were they saying the same thing? P> Probably not.”<<
Fine. Not conducive to a smooth transition from one president (and administration) to another. It doesn’t look good, but it’s an internal to U.S. matter.
>>”The evacuation from Aleppo is to rebel held territory. I’m assuming that once they have Aleppo then Assads troops are going to move on towards the very areas that the people are being evacuated to.”<<
Which evacuation are you talking about? There was is an evacuation of rebels/militants (anti-Assad jihadists) out of Aleppo. Is this what you mean by “people”?
>>”And you see that as a good use of U.S. troops?”<<
Do you see Obama administration backing the Anti-Assad jihadists, last few years and as we write, a good thing? Do you want further instability in Syria, perhaps, you view it in the interest of the U.S.?
IF not, then there has to be a solution involving the U.S., and very possibly U.S. troops on the ground, to ensure stability in moving forward. That’s is what the U.S. should’ve done in Iraq too after the invasion.
>>”And having spent years fighting against his opponents then why would Assad agree to setting up territories where they could continue their opposition in peace?”<<
The “safe zones” will be temporary, way I see it, until the AQ/ISIS (aka “rebels” and “people”) issue is resolved. Safe zones are about temporary containment. The issue, first & foremost, must be agreed & settled with those who back these jihadists.
>>”Obama admin clearly backed and continues to support anti-Assad jihadis in Syria.
Which I disagree with and I would rather not see Trump follow the same mistakes.”<<
Precisely. Trump is a non-interventionist, or has said so, so far. Though, we are where we are now because Obama did make huge mistakes & intervened by proxy. Hence, the U.S. needs to directly participate to satisfactorily resolve it, and move on.
We'll just have to wait and see - so many keep "muisunderestimating" him.....
You mean the 83 Syrian troops killed by the U.S. aka “ the air force of ISIS” ?
If you get any honest reports from Aleppo ( not western media)
Like this canadian independent journalist you can start to,get a better idea why people are running for govt areas, not away
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AbIqdRvOnww
Nope there is zero reason for us to seize Syrian territory and jump into the war against assad. Mattis is OK, but he is on board with the same old goal of “remove assad”.
Stupid idea.
“Nope there is zero reason for us to seize Syrian territory and jump into the war against assad.”
You’re right, stupid idea and one that I did not even come close to insinuating. You’re the one who assumes that tact.
I’m not going to spell it out. I’ll let the new President and his team bring us all into the know, when it is time for us to know. Get it?
Assad has killed not tens but a hundred thousand or more Syrians ( by even low estimates). The number killed by IS is a mere fraction.
$3.50
Better cash the check soon
Yes, it isn’t ISIS who is dropping barrel bombs on shoppers in markets. Assad deserves as much contempt as al Qaeda and ISIS.
I think it’s also fair to say that Assad wanted the fight to include ISIS and al Qaeda so he could create the moral dilemma and binary choice - it’s my socialist, secular, hereditary dictatorship or it’s Islamic extremists. Most of the time Assad and Putin have spent their greatest efforts against those not aligned with ISIS or al Qaeda. Putin fans believe that everyone against Assad must be ISIS, which is weird considering the Kurds have no links to al Qaeda and ISIS.
Then how will he create them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.