What Are the USA and Its NATO Allies Fighting for in Syria and Iraq? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14770526
What Are the USA and Its NATO Allies Fighting for in Syria and Iraq?
If the United States and its allies want to combat the Islamic State jihadists (IS, formerly known as Isis) successfully, they should arrange a ceasefire between the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the non-IS Syrian opposition. Neither the Syrian army nor the “moderate” Syrian rebels are strong enough to stop IS if they are fighting on two fronts at the same time, going by the outcome of recent battles. A truce between the two main enemies of IS in Syria would be just that, and would not be part of a broader political solution to the Syrian crisis which is not feasible at this stage because mutual hatred is too great. A ceasefire may be possible now, when it was not in the past, because all parties and their foreign backers – the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran – are frightened of the explosive advance of the Islamic State.
US is actively interfering in the Syrian conflict violating international law. It knows that with the continued operations of the Russian Aerospace Forces in the skies and the ground offensive of the Syrian army with the support of Iranians and Hizballah, Damascus has a real chance to put an end to the presence of Isil in its territory. Thus, it will be the acting government of Damascus, Moscow, and Teheran that will be crowned victors and will earn the right to determine the SAR future without the participation of the West, in particular Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the so-called “Syrian armed opposition.” This means Russia gets the “grand prix” as the winner in the fight against terrorism in Syria. As Barack Obama repeated in his state of the nation address (for the third time during his presidency), the USA would not interfere in the Syrian war. By the time of the next US Presidential election, the situation with Isil and SAR is likely to be settled. But it’s not the president who is in control in the US, but those who pay for the show, and those people are kin to bleed Russia till its fall. To achieve this goal, ultimately, all sorts of tricks are deemed to be allowed: sanctions, droping of oil prices, or traps in a form of an exhausting war in foreign countries.
It looks like Washington is trying to draw Turkey into war thus colliding it with Russia in a military clinch or to ensure Moscow’s greater role in determining the future of Syria. This would allow Washington to prolonge sanctions against Russia, while the Persian Gulf monarchies will keep pushing oil prices down. After the recent OPEC statement the prices droped to 41 dollars per barrel, which sent Russia’s currency into a new plunge.
Many ISIS troops started to relocate in Libya and North Africa, and have vanished in the flow of refugees to Europe, apparently in preparation for terrorist acts on the EU territory. It is easier to organize attacks from the southern Mediterranean than from the Middle East.
We can only recall the recent words of the foreign minister of the United Kingdom Philip Hammond, who said that only one person in the world was able to put an end to the “madness” of the civil war in Syria instantly – the Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, the US and NATO cannot easily come to terms with this fact. Although they will have to. What’s imperative for Russia today is to stay away from the ground operation in Syria, no matter how promising it looks. The West can’t help to wait to get Russia stuck in a military conflict somewhere, which will allow the US to carry on its criminal activites in the Middle East.
#14771184
The U.S.A under the Bush Administration attacked Iraq in the belief that they were in violation of not destroying their WMD capabilities under the United Nations agreement and that they would provide them to the Islamic terrorists that attacked New York City and the Pentagon. It is also true that it was the Obama administration that started the war in Libya and Syria. But even after congressional investigations into the reasons for it, the reasons still remains unclear. I believe the new Trump administration will no longer support the Syrian rebels and will try to work with both the Syrian and Russian leaders to fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. ISIS is obviously antichrist and will be destroyed by the Trump of God.
#14776081
USA and NATO allies must reduce interference in the internal matters of Syria. It is for the Syrian government to decide the policies and regulations that will govern the Syrian people. All the other nations must follow UN rule of non-interference and in case of any violation of UN human rights by Syrian government, a solution must be found through co-operation and constructive dialogue not by use of force
#14782931
Hindsite wrote:The U.S.A under the Bush Administration attacked Iraq in the belief that they were in violation of not destroying their WMD capabilities under the United Nations agreement and that they would provide them to the Islamic terrorists that attacked New York City and the Pentagon.



That was just the ostensible reason for war. The real reason was a neocon scheme to democratize Iraq in the looney belief US style democracy would spread throughout the arab world, making the arabs tamer and Israel safer. Israel was the #1 priority of jewish neocons like wolfowitz.
I agree with the post above.
EU-BREXIT

https://twitter.com/p_beejal/status/11737262938101[…]

The Popular Vote...

Here in Canada, we are having a federal election. […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

I have to revise my last posts about the prospects[…]

Antifa again demonstrates its undemocratic nature

A serious question, @SSDR: would you see an "[…]