Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Yazata, Apr 12, 2017.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,600
    Ok, use your personal definition of "globalist". I don't mean simply international businessmen if I say "globalist", but people who want a unipolar world ruled by Washington.

    Anyway, it does not matter why he is doing such things if he is doing such things. Even if he is doing the right things out of complete stupidity or because of blackmail or corruption, it does not matter.

    US "diplomats" are either spies, regime change organizators or simply deliver orders. So this is not a loss anyway.

    There is no reason for any massacres, there were no real fights between Kurds and the Syrian army up to now, and without the US behind them the Kurds will probably find some agreement with Assad. The Kurds are not an obstacle to any Russian pipeline plans, given that Russian firms nicely cooperate with Kurds in Iraq.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,522
    Me too.
    With the perspective that some of these businessmen - like Trump - want that Washington to be run by them. It's called "fascism", and you never see it coming.
    But it does matter why is saying such things if he is saying such things. It helps predict what he is going to do.
    Russian propaganda. You have no filters.
    I'm sure the Kurds facing the Turks, the Iranians, and the Iraqis, will find your confidence reassuring.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,600
    This is, of course, what in my opinion is already present all the time in all industrial countries, I name it "corporatism", the economic system of fascism. In some sense, you are right - I don't see as coming what is already present.
    The Kurds have asked the Syrian army for protection against the Turks. Assad has offered help - but under the condition that in those towns the Syrian army comes to defend there would be restored the Syrian rule. Quite natural, not? The Kurds have preferred to fight alone and essentially give up Afrin to the Turks. I would guess not without some "recommendations" from your beloved US-"diplomats", because as an independent decision of the Kurds, in the interest of the Kurdish people, this would not make sense.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,522
    Corporate capitalism is the economic system of fascism. Countries have industrialized without capitalism, corporate or otherwise - China, USSR, North Korea.
    Ascribing fascism to all industrialized countries simply camouflages it. Since you don't want to see it, that works for you.
    Of course. What we expected.
    The Kurdish people have had interests in conflict with Assad type rulers for a long time now - centuries. They know him better than you do.
     
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,600
    "They have industrialized without capitalism" is one thing, that what they have now corporate capitalism a completely different one. China and the former Soviet states have now, essentially, all corporate capitalism. And even North Korea is increasingly allowing some market elements in their economy, so there will be, quite probably, a transformation to corporate capitalism too. Ok, so far NK is not yet corporatist. You will probably find some other exceptions, say, Cuba.

    BTW, it looks like negotiations with Assad are already starting:
    https://twitter.com/ConflictsW/status/1075747293817700353

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,600
    With Mattis resigning, it looks like the US removal is not just a twit to be taken back tomorrow but serious.

    The other news is that Erdogan has changed his plans for attacking the Kurdish regions in Northern Syria, waiting until the US troops are out. Very good, so the Kurds have time to negotiate with Assad, and if they find a compromise, then there will be no Turkish attack at all.

    There is a quite straightforward line of compromise - the Kurds give the oil-rich regions in the East, which are anyway Arab territories, to the Syrian army, the Syrian army also takes over the defense of the Northern border, and the local rule in Kurdish regions remains, up to some undefined future, in the hands of the Kurds. What will happen there in the future will be left to the new constitution. Kurdish forces will, of course, participate in the negotiations about the new constitution.
     
  10. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,958
    See what I mean here, Schmelzer is practically rubbing his hands in glee waiting for a massacre to break out, because he thinks such a massacre will prove once and for all that Russians are somehow superior to Americans and always were (along with the pre-existing superiority over all the non-white majority nations too, of course). Trump wants to give Putin this prize despite his own top advisers calling it a terrible idea, despite Russian officials completely and openly contradicting his claims that they want the US to stay, despite commies like Schmelzer salivating over the prospect of more destruction to punish people for not taking his side. Also Schmelzer does not care about corporate fascists unless they're American, so no it has nothing to do with opposing "globalists", or he'd be supporting those resisting Russia and China just as enthusiastically as he supports enemies of the West.

    Russia today:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Schmelzer's glorious Russia of tomorrow:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,600
    No, I see no base for a massacre, given that the Kurds have a simple choice without any massacre, namely a reasonable compromise with Assad.

    One should not forget that the Kurds have all the time during the civil war cooperated with Assad. Not without some conflicts, but nothing serious. The relations detoriated only during the last two years because of the US "diplomats" trying to use the Kurds as their cannon fodder.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,522
    China is still in transition - the State owns the land and other major resource pools, for example.
    Regardless, empty categories like "corporatism" we can dismiss - and the rise of fascism in the US and former USSR (but not, yet, China) becomes visible.
    So the Kurds suffer badly, the bad news regimes in Turkey and Syria consolidate their hold, and Putin has another notch in his belt.
    The interesting times will come if these surrounding countries - Turkey, Iran, Iraq - see opportunity for their own ambitions.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,522
    You mean, Assad did not attack them. Assad had his hands full. Now he doesn't.
     
  14. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,958
    There's not a single ethnic group in Syria that hasn't been brutalized by Assad's forces, aside from those groups who nominally took his side from the very beginning. Even the "reconciliation agreements" haven't been respected; Assad has not abided by a single one of the ceasefire treaties he's signed with the rebels to date, it has always been a ploy for him to conquer them piecemeal. There's every reason in the world to expect another massacre if Assad or his allies retake the areas the US plans to evacuate.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,522
    The question facing Americans - and possibly the Kurds - is which bad guy has the more powerful hold on Trump: Erdogan or Putin.

    The timing of this supposed withdrawal suggests Erdogan called it (there was a phone call, literally) - with Flynn under pressure for his dealings with Turkey while teamed with Trump, Trump probably cannot afford to lose Erdogan's discretion. But Erdogan and Putin have conflicting interests in Syria, and through Syria in Iraq, and regarding Iran. Trump may be in a bit of a trap here.

    And with him, in his trap, is the US military.
     
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,600
    Actual news is that the Syrian elite forces, the Tiger forces, are moving toward East Syria. With the quite obvious aim to clear the territory East of the Euphrat from the IS remains.

    Which is not in conflict with the classification as corporatism. The state may be a very powerful economic actor in corporatism too.
    Ok, feel free to dismiss corporatism completely. That's not my problem. It is your argumentation which has the problem. Here: "With the perspective that some of these businessmen - like Trump - want that Washington to be run by them. It's called "fascism", and you never see it coming."

    Corporatism means that the society is ruled by big business in cooperation with the state. So, some of the businessmen (big ones, small business plays no role) in corporatism want to rule the state completely, almost by definition. That holds in China, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Obama time US too. In Russia, some seven bankers ruled the state. Now the state has taken the power in Russia, but there are nonetheless oligarchs there, and they would certainly like to rule the state again. So, this is a quite general situation, nothing special of Trump rule.
    The "bad news" for you is peace in the region, not? Given that peace always means that the winning sides in the war "consolidate their hold", you can always use that phrase to whine about the peace. Once there will be some peace, with the former territories remaining unchanged (which is what formally, officially all of them accept), who cares about ambitions?

    Ok, the US may try to motivate Erdogan to try to occupy some Syrian territory forever. And Erdogan would, of course, like to do such things. So, this idea is not completely without any base in reality.
    That's a question for propaganda victims.

    I see it differently. The unipolar world order has failed, the multipolar world is emerging. There are always two possibilities for such a transition: War and peace. I would prefer peace. But this means that the empire has to give up its former power over the world to the other players. These other players are, of course, bad guys, at least in the propaganda of the war faction of the empire. And, given that a peaceful ruler will be attacked by the war faction propaganda, he will be painted like a puppet of these bad guys.

    That the decision to support the Kurds has trapped the US in Syria was obvious from the start. And Putin and Erdogan have used this in full cooperation. Instead of Russia openly starting to fight the US troops in Syria (they used only some formally independent even of Assad partizan movement) open confrontation was left to Erdogan, so that the US had to choose - NATO partner Erdogan or the Kurds.

    It seems, this game is over, with the US preferring Erdogan.
     
  17. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,958
    In a multipolar world, countries like Ukraine and Japan would be armed with nukes just like Russia and China. I don't think that's what Schmelzer really wants...
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,522
    Not the US. Trump.
    The US had a solid standoff with Turkey - NATO supported and all.
    And since in your world there is no reality - only propaganda of one kind and another - the question of what happens to people in real life when very bad guys take power never comes up.
    Putin, for example, is only as peaceful as he is weak. Russia is not a strong country socially or economically. Putin has to be clever - which he is. Where he has power, he kills people and annexes territory and oppresses resistance and so forth, like the rest of his journalist-murdering kind.
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,962
    If he seeks a multi polar world which he has repeatedly stated he does then of course nuclear proliferation is what he also wants.
     
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,600
    Nonsense. There is, of course, reality. What is written in Western media is not about reality, but about Western phantasies. Like this:
    The old "Putin murdering journalists" propaganda mem. Murdering journalists in Russia was a common thing during the Yeltsin time, simply because the mafia ruled, and the mafia does not like journalists writing about them. The number of murdered journalists is decreasing since then, together with the power of the mafia.
    There is a contract about non-proliferation, it was a contract from the times of a multipolar world. And there was no proliferation during that time (if we don't count Israel, which had enough educated people to build it itself, as a proliferation). Pakistan, India and NK became nuclear during the unipolar world. So, invent some more plausible strawman against the multipolar world.
     
  21. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,958
    Pakistan and India went nuclear in the late 1970's, they just put their programs on the backburner for a couple of decades after building the first few warheads. There was a "contract" signed during the so-called "multipolar" era in which Ukraine's territorial integrity, including Crimea, was guaranteed to it by both Russia and the United States, regardless of the government in charge or not in charge, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nukes it should have retained to keep the likes of you at bay. Now because Ukraine was foolish enough to abide by this contract and drop their pants, your Ruskie friends are molesting half the country, just like how they rape everyone else naive enough to sign a disarmament "contract" with them.

    Furthermore, when one speaks of "multipolar", they usually refer to multitudes of competing powers big and small, not the bipolar world you're referring to where it's just the USSR vs the US. And as I've repeatedly implied and you repeatedly confirm whether deliberately or not, you're not interested in a world where competition between powers lets all people have freedom and equality, but rather you just want a revival of the old bipolar Cold War with hopes for a better Russian outcome.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,962
    and where do you think Trump is ultimately heading regards that contract.? Do you seriously believe he intends to honor any pre-existing contract?
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,962
    He had many contracts with many alliance members in the Middle East and then with out any notification he has unilaterally broke just about all of them....

    The USA has a loose cog in power and Putin of all people should be very worried about it, but he isn't. One can only question why every one but Putin is worried about it.
    Flynn was trumps friend - waiting sentence to be jailed
    Cohen was Trumps friend - jailed
    Mattis was Trumps friend - resigned
    and so on

    Putin is Trumps friend - ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018

Share This Page