jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (15 posts)

What Should Trump Do With Syria?

  1. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 10 months ago

    What Should Trump Do With Syria?

  2. alancaster149 profile image86
    alancaster149posted 10 months ago

    What he should do is knock heads together, Assad's and Putin's, for prolonging their 'war' against an Islamic opposition that's gained - not lost - ground thanks to Assad's pig-headedness in pursuing personal aims.
    It's a leader's job to mediate and negotiate the minefields of opposing beliefs, and come out at the end of the political tunnel with a solution.
    All Assad's done is dig in and what's the result? Everybody in the region's had a hard time breaking down the 'Al Baghdadi Caliphate' in and around Mosul. What's Assad's contribution? With Putin's help, attacks on aid convoys, maintaining they were ISIS. It's thanks to him Europe's been burdened with refugees and economic migrants masquerading as refugees. It'll go round in circles until someone cuts through the periphery.
    Assad's too well protected for bombers to get to him, so would Putin pull the rug? No chance, not while he props up Assad. Does Donald have the guts to go for the jugular and put money into the opposition? Does he even know how to 'manage' the CIA (as one of his predecessors did, to swap Pinochet for Allende in Chile)? Syria's destabilised enough, it should be a cinch.
    Think of the oil, Donald. That should be a motivator.

    1. alancaster149 profile image86
      alancaster149posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Donald T should also get shot of our freeloading ex-PM 'Teflon Tony', who didn't do much for Middle Eastern affairs when he was given the job before (after leaving office, dumping his No.2 Gordon Brown in the deep end).

    2. bradmasterOCcal profile image34
      bradmasterOCcalposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, Prime Minister would have a decade more of story lines. Although, one can overlay the current politics to align with their previous story lines. Cheers

  3. Ericdierker profile image57
    Ericdierkerposted 10 months ago

    I am shocked at such ignorance

    The Answer is so obvious. You kick ass for an area. We can do 100 square miles. Easy peasy. You start to fill the damned area. You take the refugees and you arm them. You back that crap up with drones and the like. Ship these folks back with hope. Expand the area and throw all you got and the 100 square miles -- do not allow breach because we are America with the finest army in the world. We cannot kill all the bad but we can protect 100 square miles. And we would declare that America.
    The resolution is not hard. You people are cowards.

    1. alancaster149 profile image86
      alancaster149posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      'Ship these folks back with hope...' and resurrect the Caliphate, aka IS. That's all it would achieve. Then we'd be back to square one. Might as well give al Qaeda the weaponry and let them get on with it. It's Assad we've got to see off.

    2. Ericdierker profile image57
      Ericdierkerposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      BS Alan. Why couldn't we keep 1 million safe in a 100 square miles?

    3. Ivan Tod profile image59
      Ivan Todposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      why not just re-establish the crusades, with modern weapons of war, and force them all to be christian or get killed? from there we could move in on the various asian religions so on and so forth.

  4. The0NatureBoy profile image46
    The0NatureBoyposted 10 months ago

    The U.S. government should do for Syria what we need to do for ever nation of earth, "Stop Occupying Them" for the purpose of making then a part of the United States of America's Empire. 

    The Empire State building in New York City was so named because the financing Rothschild wanted to use this nation to do what England was to small to do. That is why they took the best lands from the Natives, enlarge this nation and increased the population to produce a military strong enough it is able to control an empire. That is also a reason the Constitution has never been implemented as our "supreme law," to do so require the military to be defenders rather than the offenders they are.

    1. alancaster149 profile image86
      alancaster149posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      One country the US never 'colonised' is Syria. The French had it post-WWI after the Arabs under Colonel Lawrence threw out the Turks. The French held it until WWII, when the Free French 'took it off' Vichy's hands. After WWII it became an Arab state

    2. The0NatureBoy profile image46
      The0NatureBoyposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Alan,
      Then the US should leave them to do whatever they do, they're an independent nation who should defend and police themselves without outside interference.

  5. peoplepower73 profile image94
    peoplepower73posted 10 months ago

    There are three main factions in Syria.  Shia, Sunni, and Kurds and they all hate each other.  To make matters worse, you can throw in Russia and Turkey in the mix as well.

    Bashar Al Assad is a special kind of Shia, who call themselves the Alawites.  They don't like regular Shia who make up the majority of the population. ISIS is controlled by Anwar al baghdadi, a Sunni who sees himself as a Caliph and wants to take the mid-east back to the days of the Ottoman Empire.

    The Kurds are mixture of all three including some Christians.  They are a people without an official recognized country, who are sitting in an oil rich region.

    If we take out Bashar Al Assad, we upset the Shia in Iraq, who we are working with to take out ISIS in Iraq.  We also upset the Russians who support Al Assad.  If we take out ISIS, we upset the Sunni in Saudi Arabia as they are also Sunni.  The Kurds are our allies, but Saudi Arabia uses our military equipment that we have sold them to attack the Kurds in Yemen.  Also the Turks attack the Kurds in Syria.  But we base our aircraft and missiles there.

    You see it is a real soup sandwich. It is actually a 3-way civil war. But it includes the Russians and the Turks.  We as a country have never learned that a people who practice a theology will never be democratized by our occupation of their country.  Further, they pay allegiance to their religious sect, not the country they are living in.   In my view, the best thing we can do is pull out the mid-east and let them settle their own disputes.

    1. alancaster149 profile image86
      alancaster149posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Somebody here who's done his groundwork - how did you come by this prize piece of information Mike? (It probably all started with the Crusades, so the West ends up shouldering the blame again). I'd give this one 'Best Answer' status, Phoenix.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image94
      peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Alan: I wanted to know who they are since they don't wear uniforms. The winners of WWI carved up the mid-east into zones of influence without any regard for religion or ethnicity. They wanted to create chaos in order to control the oil.

  6. faith-hope-love profile image80
    faith-hope-loveposted 10 months ago

    I would not even attempt to answer this Question, I do have my own Ideas but the solution is Political and Militarily. There has to be a well thought out Plan. The Plan has to be perfectly executed.  Hard line diplomacy has its Place.

 
working