I can't see Assad's people going for this. From their perspective, wouldn't it be better to just sit back and watch both the Turks and Kurds duke it out, thereby weakening both of them?
Professor, why do you attribute most of the death toll to Assad? Had the US and the West stayed out, the situation would have ended up like it did back in Assad's fathers time. In 1982, there was an uprising, and it was put down in a matter of several weeks, with about 20,000 casualties, and Syria's infrastructure left intact.
The alternative to Assad is in essence an Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood government in Syria. It seems you are wishing for a Western style liberal, free market electoral democracy in Syria. Problem with this is, its like going into a vegetarian restaurant and ordering a T-Bone steak. You are not going to get it because it is not on the menu.
It seems to me that no one knows what Trump plans to do, not only regarding Iran, but with many other issues as well. All of us, including myself, are merely speculating. So let me add my two cents to the pile of speculations.
Suppose Trump isn't as dumb as he lets on. He knows that on any issue that he wants to make serious changes to the status quo policies on, he will generate heavy opposition.
But he won't be able to proceed on anything until he is actually sitting in the Oval Office, two months from now. If he tips his hand now, he gives his opposition those two months to strategize and organize themselves to thwart his aims.
So he sends out a lot of contradictory, and mostly false signals that are all over the place to keep everyone guessing. Only after January 20, when he starts making his actual appointments, many of whose names have not previously been suggested, will his actual goals start to clarify themselves.
I think it likely that the Russians are simply working on their own schedule. Had Hillary been elected, it would have made sense to "pour it on" and eliminate the so-called rebels before she actually would have taken office in January, presenting her with a fait accompli in Aleppo.
But since she lost the election this "deadline" goes out the window. Since as noted above, the Russians have been giving the jihadis every opportunity to leave. Since they haven't, this reveals them to be die-hards. At some point the window of opportunity to escape closes. The Russians have likely decided that this point has come, and that it's time to wipe the terrorists out, and bring the battle at Aleppo to a close.
Unfortunately, the "moral imperative to speak up" seems frequently to evolve into a moral imperative to intervene militarily and "regime-change" a country.
The death, destruction and misery brought upon Iraq, Libya and Syria is magnitudes greater that any ever caused by Saddam, Khadafy or Assad.
Conversely, (per your first paragraph) if the Democrats had nominated pretty much anyone else, that nominee would have Trump eating his dust, probably a 70-30 percent split.
And if Hillary is elected, how will Bernie voters (like me) "keep up the pressure? Once elected, I fully expect her to flip-flop again and approve TTIP and TTP maybe with some cosmetic tweakings. and continue her war-mongering. Once she's in, and with the next election four years away, what means of applying pressure do we have? It's not like our system allows for a vote of no confidence if things start to go really wrong.
This seems to be a case where the devil we know is far worse than the one we don't. Especially, as WikiLeaks has shown, Hillary conspired with the DNC to marginalize Bernie, his supporters should focus on doing whatever is necessary to keep the Hildabeest out of the White House, even if (gulp) it means voting for Trump.
In the likelihood she gets elected, maybe we can have some sort of conversation on how to prevent Hillary's excesses, although I can't see any practical options available.
It's not just Hillary, but those she is likely to bring to power along with her; Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Nuland, instigators of the Ukrainian coup, Michelle Flournoy, Madelaine Allbright (500,000 dead Iraqi children was "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein, etc.
These people are all far scarier than Trump, and should be banished from the political scene; no effort should be spared to keep them from attaining power.
Any candidate is a package deal. You cannot separate the saber-rattling from whatever else Clinton may stand for. You are electing all of it.
And as far as wrenching her out of the grasp of the neocon hawks? She is not in their grasp. She IS one of them, heart and soul, and for at least the past 15 years she has been one of their leading spokescreatures.
What we should do "in that part of the world"? We should just get out. Quit supporting anyone in the region, including Israel.
You're right, we don't know what Trump will do, but we know that Hillary will double down in Syria, and by supporting so-called "rebels" will prolong the agony. And this is before we even get to the question of setting off a war with Russia. If we had never gotten involved, Assad would have destroyed the rebels long ago, and several hundred thousand people would still be alive, there would be far fewer refugees headed for Europe, and the destruction of Syrian infrastructure far less.
War and peace issues, especially if there is even the least chance of its going nuclear, dwarf our devisive, domestic "identity politics" concerns.
I doubt that Turk-Kurd fighting will actually draw in any other combatants. The idea of Rojava is a complete non-starter for both Turkey and Syria. At the same time, both Iraq and Iran have their own issues with the Kurds. So I expect most of the others in the area to sit back and watch the Turks and Kurds beat up on each other.
I would read it, that this "key phrase" means that if they don't comply with the CoH and are therefore not part of it, that they are fair game. The Syrians and Russians will be able to go after them along with the Al-Qaeda, Daesh, and Nusra groups and their affiliates.
Many if not most of the warmongering Republicans have indicated that they have gone over to the Dark Side; that they will be voting for the Hildebeest. It's too early to say how the Republican party will emerge from all this, but it appears that the Democrats are well on their way to becoming the War Party.
Their real problems with Trump is that he has said that he could work with Putin, and that we should put a stop to the "democracy promotion" efforts to undermine governments with which the US may disagree.
The problems with a Kurdish State are, if it ever got off the ground, that it would be completely surrounded by hostile and unfriendly states; Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Add to this that it would be completely landlocked, so I don't see a Kurdish state as being a viable entity.
Even if the four countries above can't agree on much else, they ALL have serious problems with Kurdish independence; I don't see them allowing this to happen.
Finally, the Kurds themselves are not united behind the idea of an independent state, probably due to the issues I mentioned above.
The whole idea of "Rojava", the proposed maps, extending all the way to the Mediterranean that I've seen; it all seems like political pipe-dreams and fantasizing.
I think that describing Hillary as "far from perfect" is quite a whitewash, she is both a warmonger and a tool of Wall Street. I suspect that there is quite a bit of linkage and overlap between these two positions. She not only voted to invade Iraq when she was a senator, but she was a prime lobbyist and cheerleader for the destruction of Libya and the current carnage in Syria. By supporting non-existent "moderate rebels" in Syria, she is in fact advocating for Al-Qaeda. (The folks who brought us 9-11)
If elected, I don't think that Hillary will just start launching missiles and dropping atomic bombs. Since Hillary advocates setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, I could see it as quite likely that she would order American jets to hit some of Assad's forces resulting in said planes being shot down by Syrian or Russian planes or by the anti-aircraft missile system the Russians have installed in Syria. In this case I don't see Hillary backing down, but doubling down, putting us all on a track that would end in a total war, a track that all our rhetoric about "our democracy" and the constitution will do nothing to stop.
So it is Trump and his bombastic rhetoric which are not the issue. Indeed, Trump's off the wall statements seem designed to attract the attention of the press; after all he has gotten what, tens or hundreds of millions in free media exposure.
Trump is basically a buffoon and blowhard while Hillary is likely to start us on a path that will lead to all-out war, even if that is not specifically intended.
The real issue is that the Hillary and her neo-con followers, such as Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Madeline Albright, Sasmantha Powers et al be kept out of the White House and hopefully expunged from the halls of U.S. power.
Trump is essentially an unknown, but the Hildebeest has a long established track record of spreading death and chaos wherever she turns her attention.
I can't see Assad's people going for this. From their perspective, wouldn't it be better to just sit back and watch both the Turks and Kurds duke it out, thereby weakening both of them?
Actually, it was Louis XV. And since he was King of France, doesn't this make it a "French saying"?
Antoinetta III
Except in World War II, the Russians had an enemy, Nazi Germany, to focus on. In our case, as Pogo said, "We have met the Enemy and he is us."
Antoinetta III
Professor, why do you attribute most of the death toll to Assad? Had the US and the West stayed out, the situation would have ended up like it did back in Assad's fathers time. In 1982, there was an uprising, and it was put down in a matter of several weeks, with about 20,000 casualties, and Syria's infrastructure left intact.
The alternative to Assad is in essence an Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood government in Syria. It seems you are wishing for a Western style liberal, free market electoral democracy in Syria. Problem with this is, its like going into a vegetarian restaurant and ordering a T-Bone steak. You are not going to get it because it is not on the menu.
Antoinetta III
It seems to me that no one knows what Trump plans to do, not only regarding Iran, but with many other issues as well. All of us, including myself, are merely speculating. So let me add my two cents to the pile of speculations.
Suppose Trump isn't as dumb as he lets on. He knows that on any issue that he wants to make serious changes to the status quo policies on, he will generate heavy opposition.
But he won't be able to proceed on anything until he is actually sitting in the Oval Office, two months from now. If he tips his hand now, he gives his opposition those two months to strategize and organize themselves to thwart his aims.
So he sends out a lot of contradictory, and mostly false signals that are all over the place to keep everyone guessing. Only after January 20, when he starts making his actual appointments, many of whose names have not previously been suggested, will his actual goals start to clarify themselves.
Antoinetta III
I think it likely that the Russians are simply working on their own schedule. Had Hillary been elected, it would have made sense to "pour it on" and eliminate the so-called rebels before she actually would have taken office in January, presenting her with a fait accompli in Aleppo.
But since she lost the election this "deadline" goes out the window. Since as noted above, the Russians have been giving the jihadis every opportunity to leave. Since they haven't, this reveals them to be die-hards. At some point the window of opportunity to escape closes. The Russians have likely decided that this point has come, and that it's time to wipe the terrorists out, and bring the battle at Aleppo to a close.
Antoinetta III
Unfortunately, the "moral imperative to speak up" seems frequently to evolve into a moral imperative to intervene militarily and "regime-change" a country.
The death, destruction and misery brought upon Iraq, Libya and Syria is magnitudes greater that any ever caused by Saddam, Khadafy or Assad.
Antoinetta III
Conversely, (per your first paragraph) if the Democrats had nominated pretty much anyone else, that nominee would have Trump eating his dust, probably a 70-30 percent split.
Antoinetta III
And if Hillary is elected, how will Bernie voters (like me) "keep up the pressure? Once elected, I fully expect her to flip-flop again and approve TTIP and TTP maybe with some cosmetic tweakings. and continue her war-mongering. Once she's in, and with the next election four years away, what means of applying pressure do we have? It's not like our system allows for a vote of no confidence if things start to go really wrong.
This seems to be a case where the devil we know is far worse than the one we don't. Especially, as WikiLeaks has shown, Hillary conspired with the DNC to marginalize Bernie, his supporters should focus on doing whatever is necessary to keep the Hildabeest out of the White House, even if (gulp) it means voting for Trump.
In the likelihood she gets elected, maybe we can have some sort of conversation on how to prevent Hillary's excesses, although I can't see any practical options available.
It's not just Hillary, but those she is likely to bring to power along with her; Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Nuland, instigators of the Ukrainian coup, Michelle Flournoy, Madelaine Allbright (500,000 dead Iraqi children was "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein, etc.
These people are all far scarier than Trump, and should be banished from the political scene; no effort should be spared to keep them from attaining power.
Antoinetta III
Any candidate is a package deal. You cannot separate the saber-rattling from whatever else Clinton may stand for. You are electing all of it.
And as far as wrenching her out of the grasp of the neocon hawks? She is not in their grasp. She IS one of them, heart and soul, and for at least the past 15 years she has been one of their leading spokescreatures.
Antoinetta III
"Can the zone be used by rebels to operate with impunity?"
Of course. That's the purpose of the whole idea.
Antoinetta III
What we should do "in that part of the world"? We should just get out. Quit supporting anyone in the region, including Israel.
You're right, we don't know what Trump will do, but we know that Hillary will double down in Syria, and by supporting so-called "rebels" will prolong the agony. And this is before we even get to the question of setting off a war with Russia. If we had never gotten involved, Assad would have destroyed the rebels long ago, and several hundred thousand people would still be alive, there would be far fewer refugees headed for Europe, and the destruction of Syrian infrastructure far less.
War and peace issues, especially if there is even the least chance of its going nuclear, dwarf our devisive, domestic "identity politics" concerns.
Antoinetta III
I doubt that Turk-Kurd fighting will actually draw in any other combatants. The idea of Rojava is a complete non-starter for both Turkey and Syria. At the same time, both Iraq and Iran have their own issues with the Kurds. So I expect most of the others in the area to sit back and watch the Turks and Kurds beat up on each other.
Antoinetta III
I would read it, that this "key phrase" means that if they don't comply with the CoH and are therefore not part of it, that they are fair game. The Syrians and Russians will be able to go after them along with the Al-Qaeda, Daesh, and Nusra groups and their affiliates.
Antoinetta III
Many if not most of the warmongering Republicans have indicated that they have gone over to the Dark Side; that they will be voting for the Hildebeest. It's too early to say how the Republican party will emerge from all this, but it appears that the Democrats are well on their way to becoming the War Party.
Their real problems with Trump is that he has said that he could work with Putin, and that we should put a stop to the "democracy promotion" efforts to undermine governments with which the US may disagree.
Antoinetta III
If I recall correctly, the US had only two or three hundred "advisors" in Vietnam prior to the Tonkin incident.
Off-topic, but do I have to enter my name and E-Mail in the blanks every time I send a post, or is there some way to "save" the information?
Antoinetta III
The problems with a Kurdish State are, if it ever got off the ground, that it would be completely surrounded by hostile and unfriendly states; Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Add to this that it would be completely landlocked, so I don't see a Kurdish state as being a viable entity.
Even if the four countries above can't agree on much else, they ALL have serious problems with Kurdish independence; I don't see them allowing this to happen.
Finally, the Kurds themselves are not united behind the idea of an independent state, probably due to the issues I mentioned above.
The whole idea of "Rojava", the proposed maps, extending all the way to the Mediterranean that I've seen; it all seems like political pipe-dreams and fantasizing.
Antoinetta III
I think that describing Hillary as "far from perfect" is quite a whitewash, she is both a warmonger and a tool of Wall Street. I suspect that there is quite a bit of linkage and overlap between these two positions. She not only voted to invade Iraq when she was a senator, but she was a prime lobbyist and cheerleader for the destruction of Libya and the current carnage in Syria. By supporting non-existent "moderate rebels" in Syria, she is in fact advocating for Al-Qaeda. (The folks who brought us 9-11)
If elected, I don't think that Hillary will just start launching missiles and dropping atomic bombs. Since Hillary advocates setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, I could see it as quite likely that she would order American jets to hit some of Assad's forces resulting in said planes being shot down by Syrian or Russian planes or by the anti-aircraft missile system the Russians have installed in Syria. In this case I don't see Hillary backing down, but doubling down, putting us all on a track that would end in a total war, a track that all our rhetoric about "our democracy" and the constitution will do nothing to stop.
So it is Trump and his bombastic rhetoric which are not the issue. Indeed, Trump's off the wall statements seem designed to attract the attention of the press; after all he has gotten what, tens or hundreds of millions in free media exposure.
Trump is basically a buffoon and blowhard while Hillary is likely to start us on a path that will lead to all-out war, even if that is not specifically intended.
The real issue is that the Hillary and her neo-con followers, such as Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Madeline Albright, Sasmantha Powers et al be kept out of the White House and hopefully expunged from the halls of U.S. power.
Trump is essentially an unknown, but the Hildebeest has a long established track record of spreading death and chaos wherever she turns her attention.
Time to roll the dice and go for the unknown.