All things Middle East related

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Honestly, are we sure that if the rebels the US supports win, we won't end up with a new Libya or ISIS?

I think Russia supporting Assad might be the best option now. especially if there's any truth to rumors that Russia and Assad are willing for Assad to step down gradually.

This may be so. Its a huge quagmire and letting Russia get stuck in it might not be a bad thing.

The problem is how far is Putin willing to push to re-establish Russian power. Everything he has done has been incremental international cat and mouse games.

Add in Shiite and Sunni factionalism and explosive reactions can happen

Sent from my S6 Edge

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

This may be so. Its a huge quagmire and letting Russia get stuck in it might not be a bad thing.

The problem is how far is Putin willing to push to re-establish Russian power. Everything he has done has been incremental international cat and mouse games.

Add in Shiite and Sunni factionalism and explosive reactions can happen

Sent from my S6 Edge

The situation has been a dumpster fire for awhile. We did nothing to stop the sunni and shia from coming to blows in iraq, we did nothing to stop Turkey from bombing the kurds, now Putin is bombing Syrian rebels we support. And the funny thing to me about that is, technically the Russians are there legally being invited by the current sovereign government, and we are not legally invited there.

Guess blaming Bush for this whole mess, even though he left office several years ago, is easier than trying to make hard decisions in the middle east. And no, I'm not talking about just more military force. The West dismissed Russian offer to help remove Assad in 2012, says top diplomat.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

The situation has been a dumpster fire for awhile. We did nothing to stop the sunni and shia from coming to blows in iraq, we did nothing to stop Turkey from bombing the kurds, now Putin is bombing Syrian rebels we support. And the funny thing to me about that is, technically the Russians are there legally being invited by the current sovereign government, and we are not legally invited there.

Guess blaming Bush for this whole mess, even though he left office several years ago, is easier than trying to make hard decisions in the middle east. And no, I'm not talking about just more military force. The West dismissed Russian offer to help remove Assad in 2012, says top diplomat.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/looks-...120000597.html

Kind of at odds with this article that said obama agreed with Russia/Iran to not really go hard at Assad bc Russia/Iran agreed to help transition Assad out.

Now, clearly, Russia and Iran have no intention of transitioning from Assad and have doubled down.

I for the most part am an Obama supporter but the murica! part of me says "lets puff out our chest and show them whose boss" ..... but another side of me is like "why are we soo overly involved in the ME?'. I understand we have to support SA and oil prices etc.

cant we maintain a superior economic and military advantage if we diverted the trillions in resources to another strategy?

the ME is like a game of Monopoly to me. Super powers are just proxy fighting for property on the boards to maintain or gain a monopoly.

only now Russia and Iran arent just proxy fighting anymore.

im sure russia knows not to have an accidental incident w one of our planes bc im sure russia wants us to stay non-committed.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/looks-...120000597.html

Kind of at odds with this article that said obama agreed with Russia/Iran to not really go hard at Assad bc Russia/Iran agreed to help transition Assad out.

What the article completely missed is the way Russia and US want to accomplish their goals. US has been trying arming groups and sanctions to fight SA (Syrian Army, Assad's forces). Russia is trying supporting the SA with material, troops if necessary, and airstrikes (many against the rebels the US supports).

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Now, clearly, Russia and Iran have no intention of transitioning from Assad and have doubled down.

Wrong.

Putin meets Saudi prince on 'political solution' in Syria

The "political compromise", discussed for a long time by RUS, is over the removal of Assad.

The difference between Russia and US goals, is US wants to transition from rebel victors to democracy (not realistic given Libya, Iraq, etc.), and Russia wants to transition from Assad regime to similar Russian-aligned regime (may be least of evils there, at least it's not ISIS.)

Originally Posted by over the mountain

I for the most part am an Obama supporter but the murica! part of me says "lets puff out our chest and show them whose boss" ..... but another side of me is like "why are we soo overly involved in the ME?'. I understand we have to support SA and oil prices etc.

cant we maintain a superior economic and military advantage if we diverted the trillions in resources to another strategy?

the ME is like a game of Monopoly to me. Super powers are just proxy fighting for property on the boards to maintain or gain a monopoly.

Oil still makes the world (economically) go round. One good thing about running out of "peak oil", will be much of ME going back to being safely ignored.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

only now Russia and Iran arent just proxy fighting anymore.

im sure russia knows not to have an accidental incident w one of our planes bc im sure russia wants us to stay non-committed.

I wouldn't be surprised if something like that has already happened, and it's kept under wraps because neither US or RUS want a direct confrontation there.