Realpolitik at its best. Usually the US switches support after a military operation, but the fact that they are simultaneously against and for Assad is just plain awesome in its ridiculousness..
Results 1 to 20 of 29
US starting to side with Assad
The US is now in combat with the largest armed opposition group of Assad, the Islamic State -- and I'm guessing most already saw the irony in that. But, it is also considering using airstrikes in Syria against the Islamic State and the US has reportedly shared intelligence with the Syrian regime about the location of rebel leaders.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9686666.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...islamic-state/
pew pew pew
Realpolitik at its best. Usually the US switches support after a military operation, but the fact that they are simultaneously against and for Assad is just plain awesome in its ridiculousness..
Fashionable avatar in solidarity with Five Year Plan.
Unfortunately, you didn't report the full statement. The words from the SecDef make it sound like backdoor regime change.
http://www.thetower.org/0492-hagel-i...f-the-problem/
The US govt's policy is functionally siding with assad by waging war with his domestic enemies, even if it makes press releases trying to distance itself from the assad regime. There's a big difference between a policy and a public relations statement.
Oceania is at war with Eastasia and has always been at war with Eastasia!!!
Eurasia is our ally!!!
Last edited by Red Terror Dr.; 15th September 2014 at 16:24.
Who are the oppressors? The few: the King, the capitalist and a handful of other overseers and superintendents. Who are the oppressed? The many: the nations of the earth; the valuable personages; the workers; they that make the bread that the soft-handed and idle eat.
---- Mark Twain
Stephen Gowans sees "fighting ISIS" as an excuse for the US imperialists to actually attack Assad.
Western Leaders Fear-Monger to Mobilize Support for Air-Strikes on SyriaOriginally Posted by Stephen Gowans
The policy goal of the Obama admin in Syria is to ensure stability in the region. It sees ISIS as the biggest threat to that stability because it is the best equipped and organized force on the ground after Assad's government. Taking out Assad would not be in US interests because it would create a power vacuum which ISIS would be happy to step into. That would further inflame the situation in Iraq. The US government is talking about stepping up arms shipments to FSA as a fig leaf to distance itself from the Assad regime even as it functionally helps it maintain its grip on power.
The Zionist plan for the region isn't stability.
Did that Third Worldist just imply that the United States is ruled a Zionist government...?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionis...ion_Government )
pew pew pew
Just one racist Euro-Settler state supporting their White Brothers in another. Israel belongs to the White Man, don't cha know?
k why is that relevant to what you said. You implied that the US is a Zionist government, which kinda brings the suspicion of anti-semitism on you.
Also, why is this Third Worldist not restricted yet?
pew pew pew
Because "ZOG" has nothing to do with why racist European settler states support each other.
I implied the US is a European settler state, and so is Israel. Israel is a satellite of America and Europe, not vice versa.
Luckily Israel has Tim Cornelis, cheerleader of Takfiri fascists in Syria, on the internet looking out for anti-semitism.
What's a Third-Worldist, exactly?
Deep Sea, you need to stop this petty vendetta you have with Tim Cornelis. It's stupid and borin.
Someone mentioned Obama and the USA wanting such a policy, you respond with an article about Israel saying Zionism does not want such a policy. You implied that the Zionist state of Israel rules the USA. This is quite similar to ZOG.
This is especially worrying given how you have repeatedly stated that you wanted Nazi Germany to beat the Allies in World War 2.
You implied vice versa by stating that what Israel wants invalidates what (the other post said) the US wants.
pew pew pew
Yeah. The policy is the same. Sort of like American policy in "Rhodesia" was the same as British policy, even though Britain doesn't rule America.
Only in your mind.
lol, come back to consensus reality, Timmy.
The only thing "invalidated" was the lie that what America wants differs from what their White Brothers in Israel want.
No. You prove what the USA wants by pointing out what the USA wants, not what Israel wants. Because you're just making an assumption that their positions align without actual evidence. So when someone mentioned that the USA wants Y and you pointed out that Israel wants X, you didn't actually prove anything.
Again, someone said "Obama and the USA want X" and you reply "No, the Zionists want Y" you imply as if they are synonymous.
The 'reader' can ascertain it themselves by using the search function. You wished Nazi Germany had conquered Europe.
pew pew pew
NYTimes: Obama Authorizes Air Surveillance of ISIS in Syria
[EmergencyResponseforUSAttackonIranorSyria] NYTimes: Obama Authorizes Air Surveillance of ISIS in Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/wo...=top-news&_r=0
WASHINGTON — President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad.
Defense officials said Monday evening that the Pentagon was sending in manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Syria, using a combination of aircraft, including drones and possibly U2 spy planes. Mr. Obama approved the flights over the weekend, a senior administration official said.
The flights are a significant step toward direct American military action in Syria, an intervention that could alter the battlefield in the nation’s three-year civil war.
Administration officials said the United States did not intend to notify the Assad government of the planned flights. Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly called for the ouster of Mr. Assad, is loath to be seen as aiding the Syrian government, even inadvertently.
Continue reading the main story
As a result the Pentagon is drafting military options that would strike the militant Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, near the largely erased border between those two nations, as opposed to more deeply inside Syria. The administration is also moving to bolster American support for the moderate Syrian rebels who view Mr. Assad as their main foe.
On Monday, Syria warned the White House that it needed to coordinate airstrikes against ISIS or it would view them as a breach of its sovereignty and an “act of aggression.” But it signaled its readiness to work with the United States in a coordinated campaign against the militants.
The reconnaissance flights would not be the first time the United States has entered Syrian airspace without seeking permission. In July, American Special Operations forces carried out an unsuccessful rescue attempt for hostages held by ISIS, including the journalist James Foley, whose death was revealed last week in an ISIS video.
Mr. Obama met Monday with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and other advisers to discuss options, but the White House said Mr. Obama had not yet decided whether to order military action in Syria. The White House made clear that if the president did act, he had no plans to collaborate with Mr. Assad or even inform him in advance of any operation.
“It is not the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. “Joining forces with Assad would essentially permanently alienate the Sunni population in both Syria and Iraq, who are necessary to dislodging ISIL,” he said, using the group’s alternative name, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
Still, administration officials acknowledge that the sudden threat from ISIS to Americans — several of whom are still held by the militants in Syria — had complicated the calculus for the United States in a conflict Mr. Obama has largely avoided.
“There are a lot of cross pressures here in this situation,” the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, told reporters. “There’s no doubt about that. But our policy as it relates to pursuing American interests in this region of the world are actually really clear, that we want to make sure that we are safeguarding American personnel.”
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Under plans being developed by the administration, a senior official said, the United States could target leaders of the militant group in and around their stronghold, the northern city of Raqqa, as well as in isolated outposts to the east, near the Iraqi border.
While the Syrian government has the capability to partly defend its airspace from American warplanes, American fighter jets can fly close to the border and fire on targets in Syria using long-range precision weapons.
The American military could also jam Syria’s air-defense systems by sending signals that would make it difficult or impossible for radar to pick up American fighter planes entering Syrian airspace. Such a move would give fighters a limited amount of time to hit ISIS targets or camps before leaving Syria. The military could also use B-2 stealth bombers, which are almost invisible to radar, or could fire at stationary targets in Syria using Tomahawk cruise missiles, launched from ships at sea.
On Monday, even as he warned the Obama administration against unilateral strikes in Syria, Walid Muallem, the foreign minister, said, “Syria is ready for cooperation and coordination at the regional and international level to fight terrorism.” Mr. Assad has long tried to rally support by portraying the insurgency against him as a terrorist threat. He has made little headway with the West or his Arab neighbors.
Continue reading the main story
SEE ALL COMMENTS
WRITE A COMMENT
Syria’s strategy, some former administration officials say, carries a risk for the United States, particularly if the moderate opposition is squeezed out by ISIS.
“We’re going to find ourselves maneuvered into a very uncomfortable position,” said Frederic C. Hof, a former State Department official who worked on Syria policy. “We’re unconsciously walking into an ambush.”
The White House is betting that airstrikes against ISIS in Syria might help moderate Syrian opposition groups, which are opposed to the Assad government — and which are also fighting ISIS themselves, in Aleppo. The Free Syrian Army, which the United States has provided with training and equipment, is at risk of losing access to aid and other supplies from Turkey to ISIS militants.
A spokesman for the rebel coalition, Oubai Shahbandar, said, “The Free Syrian Army commanders on the ground fighting ISIS in northern Syria have declared their readiness to coordinate with the U.S. in striking ISIS.”
The Free Syrian Army has nowhere near the firepower or ground strength as either the Kurdish pesh merga fighters who have worked with the American military against ISIS in Iraq, or even the Iraqi Army. And the weapons and ammunition that the administration have been supplying to the rebels have so far failed to tilt the battle in their favor.
CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY
In an interview on Monday, however, Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said that Secretary Hagel was “looking at a train-and-equip program for the Free Syrian Army.”
Some experts noted that the administration had another strong incentive not to do anything to help Mr. Assad. A central element of its strategy is to assemble a coalition in the region against ISIS, enlisting partners like Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
“Any hint that our actions might further reinforce Assad’s grip on power would make it hard to build that coalition,” said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the White House. “They all want to see him go.”
Timmy needs this proved to him, lmao.
They certainly can. All 70 of my posts won't take but a minute to look over.
Yes, I have read that story. Do you wish to make a point about it?
Of course, you have trouble understanding logic. Hence, why you are a Maoist Third Worldist.
Exactly. You're a support of Nazism.
pew pew pew
