OK The Middle East Is Solved - Move On Mr. President...

[Selene]

U.N. Security Council Approves Resolution on Syria Talks

15-0 WOW - Putin and THE O on the same side!!

And it worked so well with Hitler and Stalin...

UNITED NATIONS — ... the first time that Russia and the United States, who have been at loggerheads over the future of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, agreed on a road map for a political process.

The resolution makes no mention of whether or not Mr. Assad would be able to run for office in new elections, which it says must be held in the next 18 months.

..............

One possible obstacle to implementing a deal will be determining which of the disparate rebel groups would participate in the talks scheduled to begin next month, and whether they would agree to come to the table at all without a guarantee of Mr. Assad’s exit.

....The resolution also leaves open the question whether other rebel groups can be designated as terrorist organizations and would fall outside the cease-fire agreement. The resolution embraces an effort led by Jordan to develop “a common understanding” for determining which groups are terrorist and which can participate in political talks with the Syrian government, allowing the fight against the Islamic State militants and the Qaeda-affiliated Al Nusra Front to continue.

The resolution endorses a process begun by Secretary of State John Kerry to bring together the Russians, Iranians, Saudis and other major regional players with European governments to develop a diplomatic road map for resolving the Syrian conflict.

Diplomats from more than a dozen countries met at the Palace Hotel in New York on Friday to discuss a possible resolution.

At issue was whether the countries that all have stakes in the outcome of the war can end the fighting, and by doing so, help stem the refugee crisis in Europe and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

The last two rounds of talks, held in Vienna in October and November, produced a diplomatic road map for Syria: a cease-fire by January; talks between the Syrian government and opposition parties, mediated by the United Nations; and elections in 18 months.

The draft of the resolution agreed Friday by the so-called International Syria Support Group appears to include these three steps. The group is led by the envoys of the United States and Russia, and includes the regional rivals Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — which have vastly different agendas in Syria. The Arab League and the European Union also participated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/19/world/middleeast/syria-talks-isis.html?emc=edit_na_20151218&nlid=53564225&ref=cta

Read this sitting down and do not imbibe heavily before reading...

A...

We are not Afraid Mr. President, We are Angry...

[william.scherk]

What are your biggest beefs with the UNSC agreement and plan as it stands, Adam?

I am deeply cynical. If there is an actual negotiation next month between Assad and his opponents on the details of a political agreement and ceasefire, I will be surprised and heartened. I mean a negotiation that undertaken seriously by the Assad regime, one that proceeds to a realitistically enforceable agreement, a plausible ceasefire plan. That is my mininum for hope.

One wee glint of hopeful interest is that the Riyadh meetings selected a leader for the opposition delegations -- this would be a man who was prime minister to Assad in 2012 before falling out of favour, defecting and fleeing, Riad Hijab, a fierce opponent now but a butterball insider loyal party member back when. If Assad can't accept this guy as head of the opponent delegation next month, the procedure will be plainly a sham.

I am quite interested in OL reaction to the resolution and its weakness. In this subject at this time, I think everyone is an expert, at least emotionally -- there is no more terrible point of conflict on Earth.

-- I can't yet find the full text to the resolution, but here is the list of UNSC resolutions on Syria over time. The most memorable of the list for OLers would probably be the 2005 one that led to Syria removing its armed forces from Lebanon (the Hariri assassination crisis), and the one that led to the dismantling and destruction of Syria's chemical weapons (after the Sarin massacre of 2013). The Wiki link to the latest resolution is not yet live in HTML at the UN, but that will change sometime today. I will add the direct link here: 2254. [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/293635641/Syria-Resolution ]

Edited December 19, 2015 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

[Wolf DeVoon]

"The opposition that met in Saudi Arabia was a collection of random 5-star-hotel exiles and terrorist groups. The U.S. and its allies claim that these can take over Syria. But they have no real constituency and no abilities to fight Jabhat al Nusra, the Islamic State or any of the other big terrorist groups that are not part of the negotiations... There are also some evidence that the Obama administration does not really want any solution in Syria. The negotiations are smoke and mirrors to simply run out the clock and to dump the problem to the next president." [Moon of Alabama]

[william.scherk]

If I wanted the Putinist MoA sneer, I would have visited and cited. I have a dislike for their regressive-left adhesion to the Baath machine. That part sickens me -- apologists and dissemblers on the strongman and the repressive torture state. MoA has consistently toed the line of friends-of-Assad, which is disturbing but hey. Their acid description of the talks in Riyadh left out all mention of the former PM Hijab, which is indicative of their bias. The last line in the article suggests their bottom line: a re-election of Assad. Yummy. Ever wonder what they had to say about the Caesar files? Don't ask.

The new UNSC Syria resolution has few teeth. Neither did the Hariri or Sarin resolutions. But each bit in and reduced the footprint of Assad's criminal abilities.

Wolf, I have laid out a couple of minimum hope signals, while confessing my cynicism. I don't think I have explored Syria issues with you to any degree, and so don't know how much you know or care.

I do not want to think you are a follower of the Putinist-Assadist circle-jerk of anti-Americanism and anti-Imperialism peddled at MoA.

Judging from your compendium of alarm at the other Turkey-Russia-War-Inevitable-Eek! thread, you may be just highlighting freakout speculation for sardonic fun.

So despite being possibly uncharitable with you Wolf, based on an uncommented snippet from some nasty operators, I am still interested to read OL folks' reactions to proposed solution frameworks and procedures.

I'll go back to my homework, and await further resident opinion.

Edited December 19, 2015 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

Judging from your compendium of alarm at the other Turkey-Russia-War-Inevitable-Eek! thread, you may be just highilighting freakout speculation for sardonic fun. I am for the protracted work of reason, figuring out how to bring the ugly Syria conflict to the beginning of the end. I would like to think you are quided by similar attentions.

So despite being possibly uncharitable with you Wolf, based on an uncommented snippet from some nasty operators, I am still interested to read OL folks' reactions to proposed solution frameworks and procedures.

I'll go back to my homework, and await further resident opinion.

"Nasty operators" was over the top, and it rings hollow when you claim to be for the protracted work of reason. You and the U.N. are all white and everyone else is all black? Please. What Putin signed onto was the notion of an election that Assad would likely win. I'm not for or against it, merely reporting credible perspective. What exactly is the U.S. interest in Syria? -- hand on heart altruism? What was Turkey's involvement to date, before Putin deployed air defenses, bombers, cruise missiles and tanks? Pretty clearly Erdogan was sheltering and abetting ISIS, tried to crush Assad.

Have you seen this story about a truck from Texas? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-15/stunning-explanation-how-infamous-ford-f250-truck-ended-isis-hands

Always glad to have a reasoned discussion, William. Never found any cause to diss you.

Recommended reading http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-18/isis-axis-assemble-turkey-establish-military-base-qatar

I have a professional perspective that sees the struggle in Syria as a question of natgas pipelines. Qatar and Saudi Arabia want a pipeline through Syria and Turkey to supply Europe. Turkey needs gas and wants Arabian transit fees. Russia wants to block it, retain its monopoly on gas supply to Europe (and to Turkey! -- its historic rival and enemy). Russia is willing to do business with Iran, allow them to pipe gas in friendly competition. Iran has allowed Russian cruise missile attacks from the Caspian and Russian heavy bombers from Moscow to overfly Iranian territory, with Iranian jets flying escort. U.N. resolutions and Saudi "opposition" payola cut no ice on the ground or in the skies over Syria.

[Brant Gaede]

It's the old Iraq - Iran war from the 1980s continued with a twist and sundry complications. This is the biggest U.S. geo-political fuck up since WWI.

--Brant

it started with the 2003 invasion--or 9/11 (take your pick--the rest of the discussion is the same)--not the First Gulf War

[Wolf DeVoon]

Just for fun, let's see what Bashar Assad says

http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&catid=12&pageid=20081

[Selene]

Question 48: Last question: how long will this take before it’s resolved?

President Assad: If the responsible countries take actions against the flood and the flowing of terrorists and the logistic support, I can guarantee that it will take less than one year.

Question 49: Less than one year?

President Assad: Less than one year. But the problem is that they are still supporting them on daily basis more and more in order to make it more messy, and to put obstacles in front of any solution, because they want the solution, what they called a political solution, to be ended with the changing of this state, getting rid of this president or depose him, and so on. So, that’s why it will drag on.

Question 50: So, if it were without outside influence, you’d be done in one year.

President Assad: Definitely, for one reason because the terrorists in Syria, they don’t have the social incubator yet. That’s why we do not worry about them

[Wolf DeVoon]

Turkey's involvement in Syrian "civil war" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Turkey rejects Security Council roadmap http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-19/turkey-blasts-breakthrough-un-resolution-syria-it-lacks-perspective-assad-must-go

[Brant Gaede]

Turkey should be removed from NATO. Suspended, at least.

NATO itself, and the US role therein, should be re-evaluated. Especially its eastward thrust.

Avoiding a nuclear war is the most important thing between the countries capable of it. Our President thinks it's "climate change."

--Brant

[william.scherk]

"Nasty operators" was over the top, and it rings hollow when you claim to be for the protracted work of reason.

That is my opinion, over the top or not in your eyes. Moon of Alabama are nasty operators, apologists for Assad, toeing the Putinist line, ignoring war crimes in aid of a regressive-left anti-imperialist 'Axis of Resistance.'** That is my view. I don't know your view. Perhaps you consult a wide range of informed opinion. I'd like to think you can examine the work of the likes of Sharmine Narwani and Amal Sa'ad Ghorayeb -- and understand my disgust with MoA.

Maybe you consult Bellingcat and know what the Baniyas Massacre refers to -- and can point out the relevance of 'Volcanoes' to the Sarin claims made by Seymour Hersh, give a rundown of competing theories about the Sarin massacre in August 2013. Maybe you can tell me that anonyous commies at MoA are more knowledgeable and thoughtful than Yassin Al-Haq Saleh. Maybe you can tell me how Michel Kilo deserved his death sentence. Maybe you can tell me what the deal is with Riad Hijab.

I have little respect for those leftists who suck Putin dick or who provide lap-dances for a brutal crime family celebrating forty-five years on the throne. So please speak in your own voice, showing some kind of personal grasp and understanding of this terrible conflict.

(this does not mean I cannot discuss the rotten Turkish state and its destructive role in Syria or the weak, indecisive, langushing US policies over the last five years, nor that I will not discuss the unsavoury nature of the non-Nusra, non-Jaish al Islam, non-ISIS, 'terrorists' ... it just indicates that I would rather stick to the topic opened by Adam.)

You and the U.N. are all white and everyone else is all black? Please.

???

This is a jarring and unhelpful confection, Wolf -- and it suggests relative bad faith in discussion. I am not hopeful about the outcome of the UNSC resolution ... have indicated what I will be looking for in January. I can discuss the actors, the relevant earlier agreements (accepted by the government of Syria). I can discuss events and possibilities and more reasons for my cynicism. But if you want to get good-faith discussion from me, don't open with that kind of gambit. Please.

Anyway, if you or other folks here had further reaction to the UN resolution, great. If not, oh well. If anyone wanted to discuss the Caesar photos ... and the death toll in Syria, or the casualties, displaced, tortured, disappeared, exiled and detained, great. If anyone has an idea how ceasefires can be accomplished other than under a comprehensive agreement -- or via a different kind of agreement -- super great.

If you, Wolf, have a panoptic vantage on the conflict that allows you to opine on better ways to a ceasefire and settlement in Syria -- I want to read that. The interest for me is in how OLers see the conflict ending. What is a better possibility than international agreement? What is a plausible alternative? What do OLers think is a better way to approach the beginning of the end?

I will ask forgiveness for tone and tartness. I am passionate about Syria. It is surely the most hideous conflict of our time, and it means something to me personally.

____________

** -- for a thorough explanation of this weird outcropping of leftism, see Syria, imperialism and the left (see also a dissident Syrian view on the same issues by Yassin Al-Haq Saleh, Syria and the Left). An excerpt:

The revolt against the Syrian regime, so this reasoning continues, is mainly an instrument for Western interests – US, Israel, but also conservative pro-Western regimes like Qatar and Saudi Arabia – to weaken the resistance axis. The armed insurgency, supported by Qatari and Saudi and most likely also Turkish arms, can best be seen as a Washington-directed proxy war against not just Syria, but mainly Iran. However we may dislike Assads regime, that regime has to be defended; self-reform of the regime, or maybe a negotiated solution with Assad in place, is internally, the best we can hope for. But in the meantime, a defeat of the armed revolt should be applauded. That is, basically, what the blog Moon of Alabama, a well-informed but terribly one sided source, hopes for. The position of the World Socialist Web Site, Trotskyist, less friendly to Assad but just as hostile to the revolt, comes close to this as well. That website talks about a "U.S.- led war to overthrow Assad".

Edited December 19, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William, you are aware that massacres are a way of doing business in this "fertile crescent," you may notice a trend of massacres somewhat South towards where Tony lives.

I am sure you are aware of a little dust up that happened to the Armenians.****

You see, that's the way things are done in that land bridge to three (3) continents.

Cradle of civilization?

Really?

A...

****

In 1915, leaders of the Turkish government set in motion a plan to expel and massacre Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. Though reports vary, most sources agree that there were about 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire at the time of the massacre. By the early 1920s, when the massacres and deportations finally ended, some 1.5 million of Turkey’s Armenians were dead, with many more forcibly removed from the country. Today, most historians call this event a genocide–a premeditated and systematic campaign to exterminate an entire people. However, the Turkish government does not acknowledge the enormity or scope of these events. Despite pressure from Armenians and social justice advocates throughout the world, it is still illegal in Turkey to talk about what happened to Armenians during this era.

http://www.history.com/topics/armenian-genocide

[william.scherk]

Turkey should be removed from NATO. Suspended, at least.

On what grounds? To what end, or to solve which problems? Can you articulate the argument behind your conclusion? You might as well proclaim Canada "should be removed from NATO." Not gonna happen.

And if in a dream it happened, how does this dreamy rogue non-NATO Turkey factor in your Syria peace plans, Brant?

William, you are aware that massacres are a way of doing business in this "fertile crescent," you may notice a trend of massacres somewhat South towards where Tony lives.

Oh, yeah. Massacres massacres massacres. Ho hum. It's in their blood, sez Adam.

Sorry, that sounds smug and dismissive -- even an unfair paraphrase -- as your comment appears arch and smug and only barely related to my comments and the topic you introduced.

So, let's see what we can make of the Armenian genocide in the context of the UNSC resolution 2254 on a roadmap framework for settlement of the conflict. I mention the Sarin massacre of August 2013, and the Baniyas massacre. You mention the Armenian genocide. I mention the Holocaust. It's in their blood. Geez. White people. Stalin. Saudi. Qatar. Bedfellows. Oil. Derp. Massacres. Massacres, schmassacres. Hiroshima. Zzzzzz. 300,000 dead? Snore. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians? Never heard of Guernica, William? Fool. What's wrong with sucking Putin dick? Trump does.

Less seriously, Adam -- what else can I take away from your comment except Ho Hum, Massacres. What can you do. Obama's a commie fool. The resolution will never work because duh. Everyone is a fool that worked on 2254. Every last one -- and I can see this all from my New Jersey front porch. Get Turkey. Get NATO. ISIS! Massacre. San Bernardino. Muslims! Trump! Carpet-bomb. Putin is right. Get behind the Assads, everybody not a fool. Side with Putin, Iran, Belarus, Hezbollah and North Korea. Yeah. Assad. Do you want the happy ending, sir?

And so she goes. Over and out.

Edited December 19, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

And so she goes. Over and out.

Glad that you agree with me finally.

Since you went through your usual downgrading of anyone with a sense of humor and then went through your spasmotic argument with all the straw men bouncing around in your mind, you do agree that the chances of the "United Nations" successfully making progress here is, how shall we put this,

the outside probability?

Moreover, it will provide the thieves in the UN to siphon off more money into, how shall we put this,

the financial sewers that pass for funding at the great rectangle on the East River?

A...

[william.scherk]

Since you went through your usual downgrading of anyone with a sense of humor and then went through your spasmotic argument with all the straw men bouncing around in your mind ...

Yeah, I missed the humour in your comments -- I mostly missed the connection with anything I had argued, since you cited fuck all.

On this subject, in this thread, to my eyes you are not funny, and you are not serious. I have no idea what you think about the details of any plan touted or agreed to a roadmap to peace. I have not a clue what your alternative might look like. You just appear to me as arch and smug and above it all. Sorry, but that is the taste you leave behind. Would that you had something considered, to the point, and thoughtful to say about the nine different issues subverting peace hopes -- but your comments don't engage those aspects, do they?

I certainly 'downgraded' whom I consider Putinist circle-jerk leftist also-rans like MoA and gave cites to some trenchant criticism of said leftist Putinist shitheads. Am I expected to clap along when I see something I consider disgusting and reprehensible and suffused with leftist mouthwash? Do I swallow the bullshit from the RT axis of disinformation? Fuck that.

If you want to engage with issues in your ken, Adam, engage with arguments or make fresh ones. Otherwise, I am not interested. There is nothing more tiresome on Syria than an opinionated and uninformed bystander -- besides the lap-dancing fuckheads noted above.

Have a lovely Christmas. Hug a Syrian refugee. May peace come to that tortured land. I am soon slinking off for the holidays.

Edited December 19, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Turkey should be removed from NATO. Suspended, at least.

On what grounds? To what end, or to solve which problems? Can you articulate the argument behind your conclusion? You might as well proclaim Canada "should be removed from NATO." Not gonna happen.

And if in a dream it happened, how does this dreamy rogue non-NATO Turkey factor in your Syria peace plans, Brant?

I don't know who stuck a feather up your ass, William. It wasn't me. Maybe if you hadn't sniped off the rest of what I said and you didn't read you'd have different questions.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Turkey should be removed from NATO. Suspended, at least.

On what grounds? To what end, or to solve which problems? Can you articulate the argument behind your conclusion? You might as well proclaim Canada "should be removed from NATO." Not gonna happen.

And if in a dream it happened, how does this dreamy rogue non-NATO Turkey factor in your Syria peace plans, Brant?

I don't know who stuck a feather up your ass, William. It wasn't me. Maybe if you hadn't sniped off the rest of what I said and you didn't read you'd have different questions.

I am sorry if I appear merely intemperate or reactive. My questions intended no disrespect -- as did my comments on Adam's inane remarks about massacre 'trends.'

I have been immersed in Syrian issues off-site since 2011. I cannot tolerate what I see as uninformed, smug, above-it-all stances -- especially when larded with the anti-Imperialist jingo noted. Finding pockets of true Assad supporters on an Objectivish forum would horrify me. So, I don't think anyone is in Assad's pocket (as with MoA, Narwani and her crew) here, but I want to make my objections clear to whitewashing war crimes and evading an accounting of evil that fully understands the Baathist authoritarian regime. That is the root of my bad mood as reflected in intemperate remarks.

That said, why don't you try to answer the drift of my questions? I am sure I am not the only one to wonder why -- why should Turkey be expelled from NATO. I am not the only reader.

I will try again, this time not 'sniping' your full comment.

Turkey should be removed from NATO. Suspended, at least.

NATO itself, and the US role therein, should be re-evaluated. Especially its eastward thrust.

Avoiding a nuclear war is the most important thing between the countries capable of it. Our President thinks it's "climate change."

To the first point, Brant, I can probably understand an argument that supports suspending Turkey from NATO. What is that argument? You haven't given one yet. Moreover, what are the chances of a suspension, is there any glint of a hint that someone or someones in NATO wish to suspend or expel Turkey? Maybe you have read something that we haven't. I'd like to see it. I am not a fan of Erdogan and his policies on a wide range of issues. But NATO suspension/expulsion does not seem to be on any serious agenda anywhere. If I am mistaken, please show me where and how. I would support an expulsion/suspension of Turkey should Erdogan's neo-Ottoman policies take a further lurch beyond the margins of democratic constitutionalism.

To the second point, I haven't read a comprehensive argument for American re-evaluation of NATO. It could make a lot of sense, but I don't grasp the rationale. It might be good for America and its present and hopeful allies in NATO (possibly Serbia, less possibly Finland and Sweden, less possibly Georgia). I don't know.

The salient point seems to be the value or disvalue (to America or the Western world) of NATO expansion to former Warsaw Pact states. I think I have gathered that you think it was more-or-less wrong of NATO to accept membership requests from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Albania and Croatia -- let alone consider Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro.

I think it fair to say that NATO membership is subject to full and open political debate in candidate and hopeful nations.

It is fair to say that continued NATO enlargement since the fall of Communism has been a pressing fear or source of tension with Russia. Fair to say that Russia feels in some sense surrounded -- why would they want a solid democratic bloc of Western-oriented nations at their borders? I am sure Putin would very much like a roll-back of NATO 'gains' -- but why should Western allies be set aside, neutralized and subordinated to Putin's wants? It smacks of appeasement and worse, betrayal of Western ideals.

In my mind it is the sovereign will of the post-Soviet NATO members to be part of the 'us,' the West. It is not their hope to be neutered or Finlandized (or Moldovanized, or Transdniestra-ized). That's the hang-up. It was their desires to be part of NATO defensive collectivity. What do we do to de-Westernize, de-NATO such countries?

I mean, what's in it for them, Brant? How would we convince Poland, for example, to come out from under the NATO umbrella?

As for the USA and its present president having avoided a nuclear showdown, he does have a year and a bit to go. I suppose we could expect a ratcheting of tension between nuclear powers, but I don't see the clock having advanced closer to doomsday. Maybe that is just me.

That mad nuclear Obama aside, what candidates on the horizon can keep the chances of nuclear war low or stable, to your mind?

Anyhow, one last try to elicit some opinion on Syria's travails. in your mind's eye, Brant, is there a sketch of the end of the conflict? Are you as cynical as I am (and as Adam appears to be) about the chances of settlement? Do you see any changes in Syria say a year out from today?

I guess another question to you would be -- is Syria itself meaningful to you, do you care what happens there to any degree, beyond horrified fascination or disquet or horror or other kind of take?

Well, that is my apparent bad mood dispersed. Hope it went some way to explain my questions to you, stripped of rancour.

-- I will leave climate change to another day. Happy holidays to you and your loved ones. Having roiled the calm waters of OL, I will return to my own placid pond of joy and festivity. On Dancer, on Prancer ...

Edited December 19, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

See, the only folks that you are allowed to make fun of are the folks William disapproves of...

I am sorry if I appear merely intemperate or reactive. My questions intended no disrespect -- as did my comments on Adam's inane remarks about massacre 'trends.'

I have been immersed in Syrian issues off-site since 2011. I cannot tolerate what I see as uninformed, smug, above-it-all stances -- especially when larded with the anti-Imperialist jingo noted. Finding pockets of true Assad supporters on an Objectivish forum would horrify me. So, I don't think anyone is in Assad's pocket (as with MoA, Narwani and her crew) here, but I want to make my objections clear to whitewashing war crimes and evading an accounting of evil that fully understands the Baathist authoritarian regime. That is the root of my bad mood as reflected in intemperate remarks

For the record, I did not say one single word about the highlighted areas.

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

Moon of Alabama is a forum like this one, multiple posters, crowd sourcing information. Slurs are silly. Glad you have other sources. I read everything and anything in the hope of gleaning pertinent facts. I mentioned my own take on the Syrian struggle -- it's about gas pipelines and transit fees. Certainly it's more than that, but the Arabian angle of arming and funding rebels is rooted in a geopolitical tug of war unrelated to long-standing Israeli security interests and worry about a Shia Crescent. Threats to Israel have been fairly low intensity since 2006-2008. At least they stopped killing quite so many Palestinians and Lebanese. IDF has the luxury of doing nothing while Syria burns. Kurdish oil production makes its way to Turkey and perhaps Israel, but I think it's a marginal play. The United States solemnly pledged to send Israel as much oil as they needed, more or less permanently, in 1975. During the past decade, we shipped an average of 5 million barrels of crude and jet fuel annually to Israel and paid for it as part of the US guarantee of weapons and housing and whatever else Israel says it needs from US taxpayers.

Let's say you're right that Assad is a villain.

Pretty popular villain. Had a lot of enablers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014#Results

[william.scherk]

Adam, I was explaining to Brant that my questions to him re NATO were not intended to be disrespectful of his opinion -- but were intended to draw out his opinion. You are as touchy as a Trotskyite.

To your interjections above, quoting my answer to Brant, what is your larger point, please? I made it clear that I think your comments about the Armenian genocide were inane and had nothing to do with anything I brought up. You didn't quote anything, but appeared to riff off my mention of 'massacres' ... to my mind you had nothing to say about the massacres I mentioned or any issue I raised, so you dashed off to Wikipedia for a plug.

What does it matter to Syria today that the Armenians were slaughtered by Turkey in 1915? What 'fun' did you have in mind?

To my mind your riff was off-base, and worthy of a scornful if not contemptuous rejoinder. Again, what the hell was your point about the Armenian genocide and the 'trend'? A sloppy reader might think you were indulging in basest 'whataboutery' or deflection from the issue of Assad crimes. Since you won't elaborate for other readers, I am happy to leave the impression that your opinions lack cogent points of interest or argument.

As for the rest of your reaction to my comments to Brant, pffft. I challenge you to write something clear and meaningful about the prospect of an end to conflict in Syria. I am sure you have opinions or greater observations, some over-arching sadness or cynicism or something that pertains to the actual prospects ...

-- it might not be obvious to you, but my remarks about the Putinist circle-jerk exemplified by the anonyms at Moon of Alabama were Not About You.

I will bow out and leave you the final word, whine, what have you. Soon Wolf will be back to clean my clock anyway. If he has anything interesting and original to say, or if he takes issue with a quote or claim of mine, fine. I am expecting perhaps at best a bloodless civil question or two, and some tentative engagement with Baathist crimes. If he cannot be bothered to discuss evils of the regime side of things, well, sad but not surprising.

Happy Holidays to all ... and to all a good night.

Edited December 20, 2015 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

I move the previous question and comments you overlooked? http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15648#entry244529

[Selene]

I move the previous question and comments you overlooked? http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15648#entry244529

Seconded.

A...

Bill just refuses to get that I will not engage when he respobds the way he does.

His needs are not a claim on me.

[Brant Gaede]

Turkey should be removed or suspended from NATO: why? It's not a true European power but as a member of NATO it can draw us into a Middle Eastern conflict in a way we might not want to go. Now, why should the US get rid of Assad? It has already welched on that project.

NATO was established to stop Soviet expansionism. Job done. How about re-evaluation time?

Two of the world's three major nuclear powers mix it up with and in Iraq-Syria with different goals. The sane thing is to stand back and let Russia do what it's going to do made possible by feckless US policies there.

I have not time enough to become expert enough for much further comment on stupid US wars begetting more wars.

Scratch too many Objectivists and it's neo-Con all the way down--or so it too often seems.

--Brant

[Selene]

There have been allegations for decades that Syria was a protected [by the Assad regime] heroin highway.

I have never tried to find anything to verify that, however, it is not surprising.

A...