Please explain the difference between 'The West' and Russia's policies in Syria.

a reply to: MrSpad

If Assad did not have Iran, Hezbollah and Russia propping him up he would be long gone and the vast majority of Syrians would not defend him.

Look how well that went when Saddam and Gaddafi were removed.

The vast majority of Iraqi's wanted Saddam removing, we removed him and its all gone even further tits up than anyone ever thought imaginable.

I have no magical solution, but it seems to me that regime change alone isn't the answer.
If Assad is removed from power then it seems pretty apparent to me that there's countless numbers of warlords, tribal chieftains, religious and political leaders who would seek to replace him with the result being an exact replica of Iraq or Libya.

And as has been said previously, surely IS are the biggest danger at present.
Why not unite to provide a strong, well thought out plan to eliminate the immediate threat that IS pose and provide safe havens for refugees.
Then it may be possible to work together, with the Syrian people included, to seek workable and lasting solutions to Syria's problems whilst also maybe protecting Western and Russian interests.

Pie in the sky?
Possibly, maybe even probably.
But its a damn sight better approach than the one's that are currently being persued.

a reply to: Freeborn

I think the gist of the situation is that when our receptive nations "The West" meddle in affairs that are really not our concern. Toppling who we consider to be dictators and/or attempting to bring our own brand of democracy to people and places that nether require or request such actions in the first place it seldom ends well. Point of fact all it achieves is the creation of the next generation of terrorist.

Keeping in mind that our political leaders institute these wars at the bequest of the money men/military industrial complex just so they can turn a profit.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: MrSpad

If Assad did not have Iran, Hezbollah and Russia propping him up he would be long gone and the vast majority of Syrians would not defend him.

Look how well that went when Saddam and Gaddafi were removed.

The vast majority of Iraqi's wanted Saddam removing, we removed him and its all gone even further tits up than anyone ever thought imaginable.

I have no magical solution, but it seems to me that regime change alone isn't the answer.
If Assad is removed from power then it seems pretty apparent to me that there's countless numbers of warlords, tribal chieftains, religious and political leaders who would seek to replace him with the result being an exact replica of Iraq or Libya.

And as has been said previously, surely IS are the biggest danger at present.
Why not unite to provide a strong, well thought out plan to eliminate the immediate threat that IS pose and provide safe havens for refugees.
Then it may be possible to work together, with the Syrian people included, to seek workable and lasting solutions to Syria's problems whilst also maybe protecting Western and Russian interests.

Pie in the sky?
Possibly, maybe even probably.
But its a damn sight better approach than the one's that are currently being persued.

The problem with that is nobody sees ISIS as the long term real threat. Assad has been known to bomb ISIS in area and bomb rebel positions under attack by ISIS in another. And when ISIS first started rolling on the rebels and kurds Assad took a hands off approach on ISIS and focuses on the rebels instead. Until ISIS turned and went after Assad as well the rebels and the Kurds were sure ISIS was Assad's creation. They are not going to trust or forgive him for that.

What is likely to happen is Assad will be removed from power (maybe allowed to stay in Syria in ceremonial position but, somebody will kill him down the road), his forces turned over to a new coalition government with the rebels and then the focus will be on ISIS. Once ISIS goes down though it is likely fighting among the factions will break out for awhile and Syria will likely become a few nations.

In cases like Iraq, Libya and Syria you can either support the people, support the dictator or do nothing. The people are not going to give up unless they are exterminated, the Dictator with no fear of outside interference will exterminate them if possible. The one thing you will find in Iraq and Libya no matter how bad it is nobody would go back to they way it was before.

People from the West are so naive and drunk on propaganda. So many sheeple littered about.

The Syria situation is simple. Petrol dollars. Syria is not in the fold of Western ponzi banking. Russia, Iran, and Syria are all allied. The progression of the West's over reaching in the ME is apparent. It's a systematic assimilation, driven by the megalomaniacs puppeteers from IMF, BIS, WB, etc..

What did Gaddafi and Hussein have in common? Currency and resource change. These countries were trying to break away from Petroleum dollar dependency. The rest of the propoganda spoon fed, is all a smoke screen. "Omg Terrorists! Omg WMDs! Omg Chem weapons on their citizens! The mouth breathers will believe anything out if MSN or the White House. They're a bunch of bobble heads.

America is letting "ISIS" run rampant until they get close to Syria municipal, energy, or infrastructure targets then conveniently send in missles and drones to bomb the location to high hell. " Sorry Syria, collateral damage, oops". Why do you think we don't want Russia aiding Syria vs ISIS? Bc Russia would eradicate ISIS in a week.

a reply to: Freeborn

Please explain the difference between 'The West' and Russia's policies in Syria.

The west has gone there to do the bidding of the US who want to thro Assad out cos he stands in their way. They also want to bomb Syria back to the stone age so it its easier to israyhell to slowly bring it it under their control and ownership

Russia has gone their to fight ISIS and take away the US's excuse for bombing Syria bck to the stone age and then get the contracts for oil explotiation and rebuilding the palce. good money see.

a reply to: Azureblue

Its all just hand in glove tactics and in the end its still only about monies and resources. Russia and the West don't give a crap as to the what happens to the general population. Decimating said population only serves to make control of the area all the more feasible in the short term. That is until the next generation comes of age and begins the fight once more. Again this only serves to further the agendas of our military industrial complex by way of generating new conflict.

End of the day the people responsible are the bankers that instigate our political leaders(puppets) to perpetrate there wars simply to gain profit and control.

originally posted by: trifecta

America is letting "ISIS" run rampant until they get close to Syria municipal, energy, or infrastructure targets then conveniently send in missles and drones to bomb the location to high hell. " Sorry Syria, collateral damage, oops". Why do you think we don't want Russia aiding Syria vs ISIS? Bc Russia would eradicate ISIS in a week.

Well said bravo

And US congress, is "indirectly" blaming the Russians (Putin) for their action that lead to a mass exodus crisis now affecting the EU.

And what's the US doing, but just pointing fingers at Putin and trying to hold talks with the Ruskies to come up with a resulotion to the Syrian crises. While IS is running rampant in Syria, and Russian forces are getting thier hands dirty cleaning the mass helping Assad.

It's as clear as the blue skies.

a reply to: MrSpad

For the West it is simply a matter of Assad not being acceptable to the Syrian people

HOLY. Is this real life?

This kind of thinking should be taught at Universities, because this is THE definition of american ignorance.

We're past the point of when this was funny. Now it's just sad. How can a moderator on ATS have a belief like this one?

Or maybe i just misunderstood your post, and it's all just one big piece of sarcasm?

a reply to: Freeborn
The difference is that Russia has Syria already but USA wants to have it !

My friend, if USA and Europe lose middle east, the poles of power will change from USA and Europe to Russia and China.
Moreover, Saddam and other dictators were servants of USA, chemical weapons were given by Europe (specialy Germany) to Saddam.
The plan changed, according to what Susan Rice said as "new middle east" or "birth pain of new middle east", the plan became to destabilise and divide countries of middle east.
But there are huge internal resistance against the plans in the middle east. And Russia would be glad to play it's role in lessening the influence of USA and to resonance the internal resistance of middle east against USA.

It is obviously our "US" objective to cause mass chaos in the middle east. Bush all but said so. If they are fighting over there then they wont be over here.

Mass Chaos there ensures that their culture, laws and religions cannot take hold and ruin the Western life style. hey cannot grow strong if always fighting each other while all the world removes the oil from beneath their feet for cheap.