Supplying the Syrian rebels with arms won't work

300,000 Aleppans are about to be cut off and starved into submission by the regime (out of the 2 million+ who lived there before the war), and the US continues to ignore Assad's barrel bombs while it focuses on the big meanie Jihadis that embarassed the US-backed sectarian government in Iraq. No Aleppo=no moderate resolution to the war, end of story. There isn't a single war crime attributed to ISIS so far that hasn't been duplicated several times over by the Assad regime in a comparable manner or worse. Child killings? Check. Torture? Check. Ethnic cleansing? Check. Chemical attacks? Check. Systematic violations of neighbours' sovereignty? Check. Assad practically wrote the textbook on those tactics, and he's the one who deliberately let ISIS thrive on his soil, first to fight the US occupation of Iraq under Bush, then as a counterweight to moderate rebels, so why is Obama handing him cookies?

Obama's letting the US be used as Assad and Hezbollah's air force, freeing up Shiite radicals from the whole region to exterminate pro-Western political opponents instead of having to deal with ISIS themselves. Obama is single-handedly leading what little is left of the moderate Syrian rebellion right off a cliff; was he planning to recruit that moderate rebel army of his from Syrian ex-patriates in the Los Angeles area instead?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The US shouldn't be helping Iraq either as long as their government continues to allow Iranian weapons to pass through its airspace and Iraqi Shiites to go fight for Assad. Let the Sunnis have their own choice between the terrorists of ISIS and the Ayatollahs of Iran; that's not our choice to make for them, since we're not offering them any better alternatives.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a tangled mess this is over there. Just think this type of warfare will continue on forever but does that mean America and its allies must stay there and waste their time and money on fighting for things that the people there don't want to fight for? Seems those there only will fight as long as America supports them and that's not what was supposed to happen after American troops withdrew from Iraq. America and allies spent BILLIONS on training the people there to defend themselves and left BILLIONS more in weapons to which the Iraqi military gave up and ran away from the front lines.

It seems that after 10 years Iraq should have been able to defend itself against 20,000 ISIS forces because Iraq had well over 100,000 troops but most of them were placed around the capital and not where they were needed but that's another story about inept leadership. So now more American and allied troops are being sent back to Iraq/Syria to help once again with troops and MONEY which to me shouldn't be done because the leadership in Iraq started this new round of fighting by not including the other religious groups when they formed their Parliament over 5 years ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Contrary to Bells and you, with only US air support, ISIS troops have been defeated and withdrawn from Kobani.

 

How many civvies did they kill in the meantime?

 

Most, if not all, civies left the town after the fighting began. People die in warfare...civies too. And you don't think civies would have died if the were hit with artillery shells and bullets instead of bombs?

 

As I look back, your first post was quite deceptive, joe.

So you're saying no ground troops - shirking Turks or other - were required to retake Kobani? In point of fact:

That is, local ground troops forced ISIL out, so it was not merely a question of airstrikes. Sure, the Kurds eventually got it done without the shirking Turks - months later. The shirking Turks could have stopped it long before but didn't, the jerks. Their failure to act forced thousands of refugees to flee the city and cost the Kurds 500 dead. Tragic, stupid, and myopic. Your post was an example of badly misplaced antics. I thought you were supposed to have been some kind of serviceman, joe.

 

Oh hogwash, there was nothing deceptive. Both you and Bells were arguing the Turks and only the Turks could save Kobani. You didn't think Obama's use of airpower would save Kobani. Well that has been proven false. Then you went on to imply that being bombed is somehow worse than being shelled or shot. No one said, only airpower would save Kobani. You took a statement out of context and misrepresented it. This is an old discussion.

Ah, no. That wasn't the argument. You are being more than a little disingenuous. The discussion was about Obama's used of air strikes. In your view the Kurds couldn't prevent the fall of Kobani without additional land forces. You and Bells thought all was doomed unless the Turks moved across the border and defended Kobani. Well time has proven you to be wrong yet again. Obama's use of air strikes was all that was needed to defend and defeat the ISIS takeover attempt of Kobani.

 

Wrong. We both argued that the Turks had a moral obligation to help, being right at the scene with abundant military resources. The Kurds did get the job done - after huge dislocation, much time and hundreds of casualties.

That just ain't so: our discussion was whether or not the Turks ought to intervene. I refer you to posts 64 and 72, right off the bat. Were you referring to a different discussion?

In my view the Turks had an obligation to help defend Kobani. I don't recall saying they specifically would collapse without help; either way, please don't distract the discussion.

That and thousands of Peshmerga and Kurd troops. Are you dissembling again, joe?

I appreciate that your fawning adoration of the most recent twat to sit the chair may be clouding your judgement, but I would have thought you'd appreciate the interests of the most direct and simple moral imperative. You struggle to redirect this back onto Obama again and again in this post; I don't recall making any criticisms of him specifically (except just now, but in no worse context than any other twat to sit the chair), and I could care less in context of this issue. Do you think he flew the planes also? Did he launch the weapons from his personal hoverskateboard?

 

Just how long does America have to hold the hands of Iraq to keep the government there from collapsing by the force of insurgents and ISIS? We know that America has over 30,ooo troops still in South Korea to help them prevent a war with the nutter from North Korea but that is costing billions of taxpayers dollars to do. Then there was Burma which America freed once but it couldn't keep the communists out even though America spent billions there and thousands of lives lost. At least America knew not to go back into Burma and saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives by not doing so.

So what does America, and her allies need to do in Iraq, leave and let it collapse or stay and waste billions of dollars and thousands of lives?

 

That was part of your argument, but it was just a part. You are cherry picking. You are ignoring the fact that you and Bells were critical of Obama’s response, saying it was insufficient. History has again proven you to be wrong.

More cherry picking, I refer you to the OP and posts 61 and 62.

Bells did infer that Kobani would collapse without intervention by the Turks, and thus began the discussion about Turkish moral obligations. And you agreed with Bells.

You are being dishonest again by taking my material out of context and misrepresenting it. I never disassembled those thousands of Peshmerga/Kurdish troops. Those troops were already present and engaged in the Kobani fighting.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No you never remember criticizing Obama except for just now. Turkish politics and the politics of the region are complicated. And in the end, this isn’t about Turkey. It is about bringing about some security and stability into the region. Turkish intervention wasn’t needed to save Kobani. Allied air strikes destroyed ISIS positions in and around Kobani and prevented ISIS from resupplying their fighers. That bombing led to the collapse of ISIS positions in and around Kobani and it allowed the Peshmerga to secure the city.

 

Please link to the argument in which I said your sacred cow's response was "insufficient". I recall pillorying him for supplying arms, but I don't recall demanding more of him.

If only history was what you thought it was, Joe.

Tenuous at best. In cherry picking out the most marginal of mentions there, you have conveniently ignored 99% of the entire discussion. One wonders: how small a lever is required to tip your sacred cow, joe?

And Kobani was occupied for months by ISIL. And it was saved largely, or rather critically, by the action of ground troops: I don't know if they mentioned this in your military days, joe, but aircraft do not hold ground. The Turks were right there, and did nothing. Well, not nothing: I think they did kill a Kurdish demonstrator and lobbed tear gas at a Kurdish rally. But they did nothing to help Kobani, joe. That was kind of the point.

Your grasp of English makes me wondering what it is you're trying to say. 'Dissemble' does not mean 'disassemble', joe. Consult your dictionary.

Now, as I said earlier, without the addition of more Kurdish troops, Kobani could not have been retaken. So, again, more soldiers - some kind of ground involvement - were required. The Turks could have done that: and didn't. Again, that was the point, joe. I realise you're a little sensitive to any criticism of Obama, however distal, but no amount of weasel wording will make this argument about him, at least so far as I'm concerned. And to pretend that you somehow knew that the Kurds would get by without any additional ground support is both deceptive and utterly wrong.

Please, joe: don't get yourself in a lather over the gentlest of rebukes. If you want me to really do a number on him, we could talk, sure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It was about thousands of people being displaced, about which Turkey could apparently not give a damn. At the least.

 

Nice attempt at revisionism. I suggest you go back and read if your memory is that bad.

No, it is just fact. I suggest you read the OP again. And where is my sacred cow?

So in your revisionist world Kobani was saved "largely or critically" by ground action of ground troops? Then why did you feel it was necessary for Turkey to become involved? And why was it ISIS didn't cease advancing and begin retreating until after airstrikes began. Additionally, where did I say aircraft hold ground? That's a straw man friend. You are really stacking up the illogical arguments as is your custom. Actually, the Turks did help. They just didn't invade as you wanted them to. Turkey allowed Kurdish troops to transit Turkish territory and allowed their airspace to be used for Allied strikes on Kobani and other ISIS held territory.

LOL, perhaps you should consult the dictionary before you post. More illogical argument, why am I not impressed? Ad hominem doesn't improve your argument.

Oh, this is new. So now your position is the Kurds just needed to throw more troops into the fray? If Turkish troops were not needed, then why did you push so much for those Turkish troops to defend Kobani? If air strikes were of no value, then why is it that only when airpower was introduced did conditions on the battlefield change? ISIS only stopped advancing after airstrikes had been initiated.

There is nothing wrong with criticism of Obama distal or otherwise if it is well-founded. You need to work on the well-founded part. Here is one of the differences between you and me. I never made a prediction about what was and wasn't needed. But I did and do feel, Obama has the correct strategy for the region: building a well regulated new Free Syrian Army, coordinated Allied airstrikes, rebuilding the Iraqi Army and supplying the Kurds with arms, food, and the equipment they need to fight ISIS.

Lather? Laughter isn’t “lather”. Maybe it would be helpful to pull that dictionary out again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure, thousands of people were displaced. But that displacement occurred before you called upon Turkey to intervene and didn’t change the military situation on the ground.

 

Please link to the post where I accused Obama of not doing enough.

...because Turkey had ground troops right there, joe. Troops that could have stopped ISIS right on the spot. Troops which you felt required an OOB to advance about three or four kilometers, wasn't it? (Again: that's not what an OOB is, joe.)

Too little, and not on time. Could you outline your point here? Do you really think aircraft alone repelled ISIS? Please, show how this was so. Did you ever find that link where I said that Afghanistan was not going to "fold like a cheap suit"?

I think you meant "why am I not surprised?" Keep up, there's a good fellow.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The Turks were in a position from the very start to stop ISIS. They failed to do so. Airstrikes alone were clearly insufficient. The Kurds were forced to bring in their own troops, which took time and cost lives. The better-armed Turks could have intervened, but did not. Which part of this is confusing you?

So your position is that airstrikes defended the city all by themselves? Wow. Again: you claim to have been in the military, albeit as a squid, as I recall. Do you not understand that soldiers, not airplanes, hold ground? Please link to the post where I said air strikes were of no value.

No, you just retailed excuses for Turkey's failure to act appropriately.

Yes, I suppose I should have guessed you weren't familiar with the word. Mea culpa.

Your second sentence has nothing to do with anything: the Turks failed to intervene. The situation developed into a long, drawn-out siege. Case closed.

 

Well, yeah, an OOB is the custom and has been for thousands of years. It's about that planning thingy. Before you go telling someone else they don't know what an OOB is perhaps you should first learn what an OOB is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle#United_States_Army

And what does that mean? The facts are clear. ISIS began attacking Kobani in September and at year end was on the verge of success. Allied airstrikes began in January and today, ISIS has abandoned Kobani. You don't think that is the point? Did I say "aircraft alone". No I didn't. The bottom line here is you cannot make a coherent honest case so you are reduced to a pile of fallacious arguments.

Well you can think that, but you would be wrong. I meant "impressed", which is why I used the word.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually, no they were not there from the beginning. They were late arrivals. History has shown that airstrikes were the deciding factor in repelling ISIS. Kurdish troops were present right from the start. Who do you think ISIS fought for control of the city? What part of that is confusing to you?

The fact is, the unpleasant fact for you is, ISIS was repelled from Kobani by Kurdish forces and Allied airstrikes and NO Turkish troops were used.

Did I say that? No I didn't. You are back to your straw man arguments and lying. I think my statements are pretty clear. You're making stuff up again. You cannot make a coherent honest argument so you just pile of the fallacies.

No I didn't. I just said the politics of the region are very complicated. Turkey hasn't committed its troops and that may or not be a wise decision. But as previously noted, Turkey has allowed its territory to be used by the Kurds and by Allied powers to attack ISIS.

Well, why don't you use the words "mea culpa", then next time I will recognize them. If you don't use them, its difficult to recognize the words. I do confess. I don't have ESP.

Well if it had nothing to do with anything, then why did you bring it up? The fact is thousands had been displaced prior to Turkish troops arriving at the scene. Wither the Turks invaded or not, it wouldn't have stopped the displacement of individuals.

 

Joe, I think you're done here. The criticism of Obama was secondary at best - though probably accurate, and a point that representatives from several nations in the area have brought up - and the Turks failed utterly to act. It is inconceivable that action by the Turks should have produced no effect just as it is impossible to prevaricate that no action by them would have saved the town. You are a fight searching for a man. Enough.

 

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the Turks did act. However, they didn't invade in the manner you wanted them to. Instead of invading a neighboring country they allowed others to use their land and their airspace to attack and defeat ISIS. Your premise is clearly wrong. It really is that simple.