US troops to Syria

[Belsnickel]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34681648?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Quote:President Obama to send up to 50 special operations forces to Syria to co-ordinate fight against IS - US officials

[Belsnickel]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/30/453148699/u-s-will-send-special-forces-group-to-fight-isis-in-syria?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

Quote:Giving new detail to an operation that has been hinted at in recent days, the White House says President Obama has authorized the deployment of a small number of U.S. Special Operations Forces troops — fewer than 50 — to help fight ISIS in Syria.

The U.S. personnel will be sent to northern Syria, "where they will help coordinate local ground forces and Coalition efforts" to fight ISIS," a senior administration official confirms to NPR's Scott Horsley.

In addition to the Special Forces group, Obama is also ordering A-10 and F-15 jets to deploy to Turkey's Incirlik airbase. U.S. officials will also work with Iraq to establish a Special Operations Force task force, as well as helping Jordan and Lebanon counter ISIS.

Saying that the U.S. is "intensifying elements of our strategy that have been working, while also moving away from elements of our approach that have proven less effective," the senior administration official said the U.S. effort to fight ISIS has shown "good progress in both Iraq and Syria when we have worked closely with effective partners on the ground who have proven capable of reclaiming territory from ISIL and going on offense."

[fredtoast]

I usually say we should avoid direct military involvement in these type of disputes. However this refugee problem is getting so serious and effecting so many other countries that I think this might be one of the conflicts that has gotten big enough to justify intervention.

The big problem I have is that there is no clear coalition of countries fighting together against ISIL. There are so many conflicting interests that some allies against ISIL are fighting against each other. It is such a complicated mess I don't see it getting better anytime soon without a unified plan to stop them.

[StLucieBengal]

So much for ending the war in the Middle East.

The real question is why are we on the wrong side of this thing.... We should be helping Assad.

Russians and Iran are correct in this deal . We are wrong and our desires will only bring wen more instability to the region,.

The only reason we want him out is because the Saudi's want that second pipeline to Europe. Assad will give it to the Russians and that will cripple the Saudi's. Russia controlling both major pipelines to Europe would boost their economy.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-30-2015, 01:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So much for ending the war in the Middle East.  

The real question is why are we on the wrong side of this thing....   We should be helping Assad.  

Russians and Iran are correct in this deal . We are wrong and our desires will only bring wen more instability to the region,.  

The only reason we want him out is because the Saudi's want that second pipeline to Europe.   Assad will give it to the Russians and that will cripple the Saudi's.   Russia controlling both major pipelines to Europe would boost their economy.

The Syrians should have a dictator instead of terrorist?  Easy for you to say, you don't live there.

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2015, 01:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So much for ending the war in the Middle East.

The real question is why are we on the wrong side of this thing.... We should be helping Assad.

Russians and Iran are correct in this deal . We are wrong and our desires will only bring wen more instability to the region,.

The only reason we want him out is because the Saudi's want that second pipeline to Europe. Assad will give it to the Russians and that will cripple the Saudi's. Russia controlling both major pipelines to Europe would boost their economy.

They're using the forces to combat IS, not to aid the rebels in Syria.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 02:11 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: The Syrians should have a dictator instead of terrorist?  Easy for you to say, you don't live there.

The Muslim Brotherhood (who would win an election) would slaughter Non Muslims In Syria.

Sorry but Assad does run a secular government.

Reminds me of this Syrian lady.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 02:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They're using the forces to combat IS, not to aid the rebels in Syria.

So why not come out and say we are working with the Russians? If they are not working with Russia and Iran on this thing they are on tthat wrong side.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-30-2015, 02:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The Muslim Brotherhood (who would win an election) would slaughter Non Muslims In Syria.  

Sorry but Assad does run a secular government.  

Reminds me of this Syrian lady.  

I do agree with her that diplomacy needs to be used as a primary tool.  I also agree with bringing Iran into the fold and trying to find a political solution which they are doing.  Secular or not Asaad is a brutal dictator, and if you want to start picking the lesser of two evils, the Muslim brotherhood would be better than ISIS.  At least let the people vote for who the want.  There will be no peace with either Asaad or ISIS in power. Period.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-30-2015, 02:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So why not come out and say we are working with the Russians?  If they are not working with Russia and Iran on this thing they are on tthat wrong side.

It has been said, I read it in the paper yesterday, in fact it's been a big deal.  We've been meeting with the Russians and Iranians along with various other countries over Syria yesterday and today.

[GMDino]

(10-30-2015, 02:59 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: It has been said, I read it in the paper yesterday, in fact it's been a big deal.  We've been meeting with the Russians and Iranians along with various other countries over Syria yesterday and today.

Yes, well if he didn't call Lucy and tell him then it can't be true!
It wasn't on the Blaze!

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 02:54 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I do agree with her that diplomacy needs to be used as a primary tool.  I also agree with bringing Iran into the fold and trying to find a political solution which they are doing.  Secular or not Asaad is a brutal dictator, and if you want to start picking the lesser of two evils, the Muslim brotherhood would be better than ISIS.  At least let the people vote for who the want.  There will be no peace with either Asaad or ISIS in power. Period.

The Muslim brotherhood is at the root of Isis.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 02:59 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: It has been said, I read it in the paper yesterday, in fact it's been a big deal.  We've been meeting with the Russians and Iranians along with various other countries over Syria yesterday and today.

Good. Hope we fall in line. It's a sad day when we are on the wrong side and the Russians and Iranians are on the right side.

The problem with various other countries is that it includes Saudi Arabia. Who refuses to take in refugees but wants us to toss out Assad so they can get the Muslim brotherhood in there to approve their pipeline. So the Saudi's can keep finding Isis and other terrorists.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-30-2015, 03:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The Muslim brotherhood is at the root of Isis.

expand on this please?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-30-2015, 03:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Good.   Hope we fall in line.   It's a sad day when we are on the wrong side and the Russians and Iranians are on the right side.

The problem with various other countries is that it includes Saudi Arabia.   Who refuses to take in refugees but wants us to toss out Assad so they can get the Muslim brotherhood in there to approve their pipeline.    So the Saudi's can keep finding Isis and other terrorists.

Where do you get the idea that the Saudi regime (which is a monarchy) is funding terrorists or ISIS?

Edit: And I really don't see the Russians or Iranians as being on the "right" side of things at the moment.

[GMDino]

(10-30-2015, 03:35 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: expand on this please?

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 03:38 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Where do you get the idea that the Saudi regime (which is a monarchy) is funding terrorists or ISIS?

Edit: And I really don't see the Russians or Iranians as being on the "right" side of things at the moment.

Saudi Arabia has always funneled money to the taliban either direct or indirectly. Taliban has become Isis .

If Assad is overthrown it will be the Muslim brotherhood who gets elected. If you let Muslims vote they will vote for the MB. Which just means another Egypt where innocents are slaughtered and taxed for not being Muslim.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 03:35 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: expand on this please?

http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/egyptian-govt-says-isis-came-muslim-brotherhood

There is more out there just gotta dig it up.  That was the first I saw.

And before anyone starts on the website .... It's linked to an Egyptian newspaper.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-30-2015, 03:45 PM)GMDino Wrote:

This has nothing to do with progressivism. More about just whether we are going to support evil or will we stand for good. So it says more about our character as a nation currently.

[Belsnickel]

I've actually seen more claims that ISIL/ISIS is a Frankentstein's monster, with Frankenstein in this case being Assad.