Posted on 04/08/2017 5:46:49 PM PDT by McGruff
US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said in an interview airing Sunday on CNN that until Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is out of power, she doesn't see a political solution to the conflict in Syria.
"There's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime," Haley told "State of the Union" anchor Jake Tapper. "It just -- if you look at his actions, if you look at the situation, it's going to be hard to see a government that's peaceful and stable with Assad."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Back in December the Israelis took out a Syrian convoy that was going to deliver arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon. While not being specific they felt the need to eliminate that convoy due to the particular type of weapons being smuggled out- either a missile system or something much more of interest to Israel’s security than small arms.
>”It just — if you look at his actions, if you look at the situation, it’s going to be hard to see a government that’s peaceful and stable with Assad.”
Good grief. If you allow islam in your society, there is no hope for peace.
Either admit it Haley or STFU. Those of us that have a clue don’;t need your vagueness. Eliminate islam or get out of the way.
This is not something new, and Nikki Haley is not off on her own.
Discussions have been going on for years. There are good reasons to get rid of Assad (to a retirement palace in Iran, Russia, Switzerland or somewhere).
1. Symbolic. He is the face of the old regime. The people who fought so hard against the regime for so long, will be unlikely to ever accept him staying.
2. De-Ba’athification. The Syrian Ba’ath Party is the last ruling party on Earth, based on the principles of the Nazi Party - socialism based on race rather than class. It should drop that BS. The Ba’ath Party that currently runs Syria is built around the Assad family - Bashar needs to lead the reform, by example. Getting rid of him is necessary to break up the Ba’ath.
3. Rehabilitation. Like the communist parties of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the Syrian Ba’ath have a history of horrible oppression and war crimes - they need to be able to walk away from that history, to play a part in an acceptable future government. That means they need a new a new cover - a re-branding. The country needs their experience and skills, but they need to have a way to stay out of jail, if they are to accept a peace settlement.
4. Somebody gets to pick the next strongman. This is the big plum in shaping the future of Syria. Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia (with their many jihadi front groups), will not leave a future Syria in peace, so a strong security apparatus will be needed, or you are just asking for trouble. Assad will never be our guy.
The plan has long been to re-write the constitution to ease up on some of the fascist/racist BS, grant a bit more democracy and regional autonomy (e.g. for Kurds), and form a new government - after some lengthy stabilization period. It has long been the US position that Assad should not lead that. There are good reasons, but the really important part is who does.
“There are good reasons to get rid of Assad.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Team America, World Police. F yeah!
We’re the United States of America: We’ll wage covert CIA/SOF wars wherever and whenever we want to - because we’re the biggest and baddest military the world has ever seen.
We’re the United States of America: We’ll take those wars hot whenever we want to - without Congressional authorization and without debate.
We’re the United States of America: We’ll nation build something that fails miserably again, resulting in another few hundred thousand deaths.
And when the people elect someone who promises no more business as usual, he gives them the finger and becomes the MIC/Deep State inside three months.
An Empire so drunk on its own hubris it fails to see its imminent nemesis.
*** What if we simply blow all of them up?...Sort of a peace-keeping mission. ***
The “plan” is a stabilization force of Kurds and Saudis. A stabilization force of Sunnis bringing peace to those apostate Shias. The US troops will help. I guess Jordan is on board.
Will we ever get out from under our Lizard Overlords Globalist Elites and Our Saudi Masters?
Wow, a group of Elites decides they don’t like one of those countries that isn’t in debt to the IMF, and Global Bankers.
So, they and their Wahhabist Pals take them out.
Well good luck USA when Karma bites us in the YKW.
Discussions by whom? You mean by the same elites who got us into this mess during the previous 4 presidencies?
What you propose sounds an awful lot like regime change and nation building. I thought we just voted to get rid of that.
now its Assad killing babies in Syria and we have to sacrifice our babies to stop it ...It all BUULL$hit the uS politicians (LEFT AND RIGHT) are the ones whon need to be stopped .....that is why the founders added the 2nd amendment....McCain can go first ....It doesnt matter they are all murderous warmongers and demon posessed creeps
play along or die ...the choice is yours
there is a globalist elitist establishment that can vaporize little Trump and his family at the snap of a finger if he doesnt play along
What you propose sounds an awful lot like regime change and nation building. I thought we just voted to get rid of that.
##########################
We did. It appears have been snookered.
I miss that guy.
Look, I understand that it’s different now that Trump is in office. He has a soft spot for kids. My thing is, there were reasons to be skeptical it was Assad. I just wanted an investigation. If the investigation proved it was Assad, you then have to decide what to do:
1. You could tell Russia to get him under control and ensure that all chemical weapons are removed w/ consequence to Russia like heavy sanctions if not done.
2. You strike the base.
Then what, though? Do we go to war and proceed to take out Assad and risk nuclear war with Russia? Do we risk the possibility that what we put in there will be worse than Assad and enable the spread of ISIS/Al Queada/Al Nusra?
If we aren’t going to war, then that leaves us with the reality that it’s the rebels (infiltrated with terrorist groups) or Assad. Candidate Trump and Trump of 2013 said that we should only use military force when our own country is at risk, and made the astute point that you can’t fight both Assad and ISIS at once. This means that by attacking Assad’s base, you only weaken his ability to fight ISIS.
I know that Assad is not a good guy. He does allow for Christians to practice which is more than Saudi Arabia does, though. If he did this, as Trump believes that he did and was told that he did, than he is a monster, and I understand Trump’s anger and disgust - especially after easing off him (Trump/Tillerson backing off days prior is a reason for my skepticism) and his desire to make a statement especially in light of Obama’s failed red line. As (if I’m recalling correctly) a former CIA head once said, “The world looks different from the situation room than it does from a hotel room in Iowa.” That said, I also am not sure this will achieve our objective if we are going to allow Assad in power to fight ISIS. It sounds like Haley and Tillerson are saying that Assad has to go, but how will we do that without a full fledged war like in Iraq (with the nuclear Russia component added in)?
yup - neocons again
they have a perfect record of failure
Is it possible the administration is doing this to goad the Russians into taking care of the Assad business themselves? He’s their client and always has been.
Other than Cernovich’s “revelation” that McMaster wants to insert US troops into the Syria battlefield, we’re not seeing direct evidence the administration is doing much beyond expressing hope the Assad regime eventually bites it.
Let’s hope he still thinks that way, because this clamor for more US involvement in Syria is ridiculous. It is the definition of a quagmire.
huh???
9/11 was Sept. 11, 2001
Saddam Hussein was taken out in March, 2003
Why would a two pipeline solution be bad?
Simple answer is that Russia and her proxies like Iran and her proxies are scaled back in the region, pushed out of a new Syria.
Yeh because nothing screams peaceful resolution like the Syrian rebels.
Discussions have been going on for years.
“Discussions by whom?”
By interested international Governments and factions involved. A series of formal diplomatic meetings extended over years (the Vienna Talks), and the the Russians separately held a negotiation effort in Astana.
Like I said, Syria will be settled one way or another. It is irresponsible to just put our head in the sand, and hand the place over to ISIS/al Queda jihadis (Saudi Arabia), or to Iran.
What is your solution?
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.