It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Assad can stay, for now: Kerry accepts Russian stance

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sosobad

Because we are entering the 2016 election cycle.

THAT's IT.



And all the talk from the US for the last 3-4 years was about what? 3-4 years of Assad must go. Your reasoning isn't making sense. Either they were involved in Syria or they weren't. If so, which they clearly have been, what is their role in your eyes?


Politics.

POLITICS!

The administration doesn't do anything without taking a poll.

Every single they do has been about politics first,

What benefits the administration.

What benefits the party.

What's good for the country doesn't enter in to it.




posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
It is probably becoming difficult to support those "moderate" terrorists. And what to say of all that "bad" publicity on who buy the oil and provide the weapons.

Now it's time to throw them under the bus and wipe clean the trail.

Happens every time.

As for Assad staying, I'm glad (if it's true). I hope this proxy war/"revolution" finally ends & people can return to their daily lives. Of course, what happens after the war officially ends will be where the real drama starts.

There's no way Assad will be "allowed" to stay in power. But the "rebel" leaders are just as guilty of crimes against the Syrian population. There will clearly be mass amnesty laws; peace will demand it. But there also have to be significant scapegoats to calm the Syrian public & the backers of the different "rebel" groups. There also has to be a fair election process that gives more power to the citizens, which was the point of the initial protests in the first place.

But allowing a fair national presidential election while keeping Assad out of power may be impossible. This war has actually increased his popularity among the Syrian population. Maybe they'll give him a ceremonial role while the nation transitions into a different form of government. Of course, it's just as likely that they'll try to make him take a deal like they did Greece's PM Tsipras, where Assad will stay "in power" while he gives away control of Syria's industries and natural resources. Kind of like the "Unequal treaties" imposed on China after the Opium Wars.

Man, I wish I was in the room during those future negotiations!



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sosobad

Because we are entering the 2016 election cycle.

THAT's IT.



And all the talk from the US for the last 3-4 years was about what? 3-4 years of Assad must go. Your reasoning isn't making sense. Either they were involved in Syria or they weren't. If so, which they clearly have been, what is their role in your eyes?


Politics.

POLITICS!

The administration doesn't do anything without taking a poll.

Every single they do has been about politics first,

What benefits the administration.

What benefits the party.

What's good for the country doesn't enter in to it.


I am asking a really simple question you said that the whole Syria thing is

The Reason Saudi is there with their proxy ISIS is because they want to put their pipeline through Syria.

Russia and Iran Gazprom and the NIOC (National Iranian Oil Company)want theirs.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's all about Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, and NIOC battling it out.

And China is backing Russias play that benefits CNPC China National Petrolelum Corporation.


You are blaming everyone but the US, what is America's role in all of this? They oppose Russia so they are on Saudi Arabia's side ie the backers of ISIS??


edit on 15-12-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


"The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change," Kerry told reporters in the Russian capital after meeting President Vladimir Putin.

They been lying to us all along about their goals and actions, talking peace in public and making war covertly. Now I'm gonna believe this rat fink one minute what he says?

Not likely. I would listen to his very words (someone link it).


Kerry reiterated the U.S. position that Assad, accused by the West of massive human rights violations and chemical weapons attacks, won't be able to steer Syria out of 4 ½ years of conflict.

You mean the US position of Assad must go for no damn reason, because the world didn't buy your humanitarian BS and after four years of F***ing the Syrians in the ass and lying about it all the while, gotta admit defeat.

Ha ha, assholes eat S*** and die…



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: sosobad




You are blaming everyone but the US, what is America's role in all of this? They oppose Russia so they are on Saudi Arabia's side ie the backers of ISIS??


The US role in this hasn't been much of anything because of POLITICS.

How many times I have to say it ?



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sosobad




You are blaming everyone but the US, what is America's role in all of this? They oppose Russia so they are on Saudi Arabia's side ie the backers of ISIS??


The US role in this hasn't been much of anything because of POLITICS.

How many times I have to say it ?


What are you waffling on about it is a very very easy question to answer. Politics is not an answer it is trying to cop out of answering. What has been the goal of Americas involvement in Syria? You said yourself it is all about pipelines so which side does America fall on Russia/Iran or Saudi Arabia? You said every other country involved but left the US out conveniently. They have been 100% involved in Syria arming and training "rebels". If they are backing the Saudis then markositys original assessment of America being complicit in the formation and rise of ISIS is correct.
edit on 15-12-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: sosobad

WHAT has the US done other run it's mouth ?

Harsh words is pretty much it.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sosobad

WHAT has the US done other run it's mouth ?

Harsh words is pretty much it.


Sent arms, trained "rebels", conducted air strikes against the Syrian government etc etc are you gonna answer the question?



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I say this is a good thing. People might not want to hear it, but it appears that Muslim countries have an extremely hard time at governing themselves.

Look at Libya after they got rid of Gaddafi, the country allowed freedom of religion and went from the highest GDP and quality of life in Africa to a state of complete Sharia Law.

Look at Iraq after they got rid of Saddam, the country is in a state of perpetual warfare and has radicalized more then ever giving birth to IS.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Once a upon a time in 2009:





Two years later and his tone has changed dramatically.
On Monday Mr Kerry urged support for giving Obama a resolution to use force, saying Syria had reached a "Munich moment".


Politricks.


edit on 15-12-2015 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
In an effort to try and understand exactly what is going on I have started working my way through 'Homeland'

So far it seems you can't trust nobody



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: sosobad

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sosobad

WHAT has the US done other run it's mouth ?

Harsh words is pretty much it.


Sent arms, trained "rebels", conducted air strikes against the Syrian government etc etc are you gonna answer the question?


You mean ISIS was doing long before the US ever got there right ?

Ya know from arab sunni allies Kuwait,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the rest of their 'allies'.

Then ISIS gots some oil started selling it to pay for everything.

Then they sell drugs, and sell sex slaves.

Right ?

I love how some people try to pin it ALL on the US.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Good Grief.






President Obama just found out how many good anti-ISIS fighters $500 million buys: five, at most. Read more at www.wnd.com...


What the hell ever.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Neo you are doing your best to dodge the question, who's side is America on Saudis or Russia/Syria/Iran? Don't hurt yourself thinking about it just answer. You said it was about the pipelines. You named the players involved. If you dodge the question again I am going to assume you know the truth but either can't face it or don't want to.
edit on 15-12-2015 by sosobad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: sosobad

The person who is dodging your question is a master bull#sh**ter.

Now, where was I !!! Oh, Kerry playing the politricks, again!



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: sosobad

The person who is dodging your question is a master bull#sh**ter.

Now, where was I !!! Oh, Kerry playing the politricks, again!


Agreed US foreign policy seems to be a handshake with the right hand and an uppercut with the left. Gaddafi warned all the Arab leaders after Saddam was hung that if they do that to a one time friend that they will come for you.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Assad can stay for now is simply reality and has pretty much been the unofficial policy thus far for the US. US forces have not hit Assad's forces instead focusing on ISIS. Assad's removal first has always been the goal of some rebels and others, with the US always having an ISIS first policy which has caused fighting on two fronts. Assad however as we all know is doomed long term. And with Russian's only arguing he should stay for now and then let the Syrian people decide later they know it as well. Russia needs out of Syria. If they can get the rebels to agree to leave Assad alone until ISIS is done in return for Russian support it seems like a deal both sides would take. The one thing we know that all the rebels group have in common is their will be no peace with Assad in power.

Once ISIS is defeated then the full weight of the rebels will turn on Assad. I suppose that will be Syrian people deciding. And Russia can wash its hands of the entire mess. Now the problem that really comes to mind is the Alawites. Assad has used them for decades to suppress the Syrian people. And Assads only loyal group many will want revenge. So something will have to be done about that. And you are not going to be able to put the Kurds back in the Syrian bottle either. I expect we will see two or three states come out of Syria. A small Alawite state, A small Kurdish state and then the new Syria proper. Although since Syria is nation with a long painful history they may want to change the name.

This over all is pretty much just the US and Russia agreeing to the reality on the ground. The US has not and is not going to be trying remove Assad from power anytime soon. Russia is not going to be able to defeat ISIS or the rebels and keep Assad in power long term.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
In a sudden 180 degree turn, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry now says the leader of Syria Bashar Assad can "stay".




John Kerry is a well known flip flopper.

LOL

Political expediency, my man. Thats all it is.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

MrSpad, perhaps lets give the rhetorics a rest and see the bigger picture for what it is. Kerry the spokesman for US has done a major flip flop and it goes to show how in the first place this could all be agreed and a coalition would have been formed between Russia and the Weatern alliance to have dealt with ISIS then, why now?

Is it because the Russians have been busy exposing the lies the West have been playing by, that suddenly there is change in opinion?

If anything, this stance should have been sought months ago when the Russians moved in on Syria.

Much of the confusion and near diasterous encounters within the Syrian airspace would have been avoided.

Better still the US should tell the Saudi's and Turks to stay clear of backing IS and share intel with Russia against IS. That would really put an end to IS almost instantly.

edit on 15-12-2015 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I have a feeling something sinister is about to befall the Assad regime...

It's not common for the U.S. to suddenly change their stance on such a key target. Unless they want to separate themselves as far away from an impending "tragedy" as possible.

"It couldn't possibly have been us! We support them now!"



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join