Trump agrees to Syrian "safe zones"

archive.is/4c7vN
zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-26/trump-proposal-syria-safe-zones-escalate-us-military-involvement-region

Other urls found in this thread:

brookings.edu/research/deconstructing-syria-towards-a-regionalized-strategy-for-a-confederal-country/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan
archive.is/R4Rjg
informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Steinberg
publicintelligence.net/syrian-refugee-camps/
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/israeli-border-wall-gaza-private-prison-company-stock-rise-trump-victory-a7408561.html
archive.is/nb1DV
archive.is/n130E
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Bullshit. I've been posting about this since the Brookings paper was released in June '15. The only thing new is there's a wikipedia page about the Yinon Plan now.

brookings.edu/research/deconstructing-syria-towards-a-regionalized-strategy-for-a-confederal-country/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan
archive.is/R4Rjg

informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.pdf

So is this good or bad?

I get what you're saying here, but this also effectively cuts off the EU's excuse to flood Europe with subhumans, and gives the future governments of Europe (looking at you, LePen) a place to send the shitskins back to.

Never said it was, but he did sign an order about it, perhaps pushed by Kushner or one of his other advisers


The problem with this theory is that most of them aren't coming from Syria
They're coming from turkey, they're coming from central asia, they're coming africa

The whole notion of them being "refugees" is for the most part false

Probably short term good, long term bad. But we can always fix things later on as the more pressing concern is the invasion.

I know that, you know that, but the European normalfags don't know that. If there's suddenly a convenient safe place in Syria to send the subhumans (even the ones who are just pretending to be Syrian, kek) it will be a lot easier to get political will to stop it and reverse it by sending them back to their safe space.

I could be wrong, though. Trump has certainly been doing whatever Israel asks.

SAFE ZONE OPEN

SEND EM BACK

The Art of the Deal, bro. In exchange for the TPP and the wall, he's giving the kikes what they want.

I wasn't saying "you" said it was Trump's idea, that's what the story is saying. The Yinon plan was written in 1982, and the brookings paper was written by ziofag Michael O'Hanlon who wrote a book with
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Steinberg

Steinberg served as US State Department Director of Policy Planning (1994–1996), then Deputy National Security Advisor (December 1996 – 2001) to US President Bill Clinton. He also served on the Project on National Security Reform's Guiding Coalition.
Obama administration
with Yukio Edano (January 27, 2011)

According to the Wall Street Journal, Steinberg, along with Daniel Kurtzer and Dennis Ross, were among the principal authors of Barack Obama’s address on the Middle East to AIPAC in June 2008, which was viewed as the Democratic Party nominee’s most expansive on international affairs.[5]

He was mentioned as being "at the top" of Obama's list of candidates for the post of National Security Advisor,[6] but Andrea Mitchell reported on November 24, 2008 that Hillary Clinton would appoint Steinberg Deputy Secretary of State.
Think Tanks
Steinberg is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has participated in 8 conferences of the Bilderberg Group (1994, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2009-2011).

Kikes have no control over either of those things.

Did you think we could just leave without doing shit? You have to break some eggs if you wanna make an omelette.

If there was a safe zone in the first place, there probably wouldn't be that many rapefugees.

Fucking hell, that took awhile.

This. Trump may be kiking out for the kikes, but if he fixes some things and takes us in the better direction, then so be it. The alternatives were cuckservatives, lolbergs who will never win, Bernie if he didn't get cucked and Hillary. Trump was and will always be the best option we have right now and things are starting off strong with him.

There's no connection since nobody comes DIRECTLY from Syria, they're all living in safety in Turkey or Jordan.

publicintelligence.net/syrian-refugee-camps/

They might not come directly but they can sure as hell go directly BACK.

All this does is force the US to have increased military presence in Syria. We're entering Orwellian newspeak territory when military bases are first referred to as refugees camps.

Don't be too surprised if they get a piece of the action:

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/israeli-border-wall-gaza-private-prison-company-stock-rise-trump-victory-a7408561.html
archive.is/nb1DV

The Israeli company that built the wall around Gaza saw a spike in shares when it became clear Donald Trump would become the next President of the United States – making the possibility of a wall at the Mexico border more tangible.

Magal Security Systems Ltd had already been salivating at the prospect of a Trump win and what that would mean for the barrier-building business. The company experienced gains over the years, as they expanded their work from the Gaza Strip to Egypt, Somalia, and other countries in Africa.

Good, and you will find no argument otherwise. This is the closest we've been from disengaging the proxy wars and positioning ourselves as a neutral power in a decade.


The narrative of fleeing terror will no longer be valid in any scenario.


Safe zones =/= refugee camps. Trump is building walls all over the place, don't you see it?

Of course but for this the camps in Turkey and Jordan should suffice, no? With these fucking Kebabs it's never enough, they always need something more or something extra.

Then we are entering Orwellian newspeak territory when military bases are referred to as "safe zones". The only people that need those safe zones, or civilians fleeing Syria have already left. You do know that the Syrian civil war is entering it's 5th year now right? Those who needed protection are already in Jordan or Europe. There's nothing different here than the military advisors we sent to Vietnam.

Not Turkey at least. They're using the rapefugees as a bargaining chip against the EU. If they don't get in, they flood them into Europe. However, even if Turkey becomes part of the EU, the "Syrians" can become EU citizens and enjoy easy travel to Europe anyway.

They all have to go.

Kek wills it.

...

...

Yeah but the EU uses EU membership and funds as bargaining chip against Turkey and they fold. All bark and no bite, as always with Turks.


I can already sense the narrative changing from "fleeing terror" to "fleeing NATO" or something along those lines.

They no longer have to be in Jordan or Europe. Not only are there endangered civilians in Syria, but this is an opportunity to re-establish stable pockets of territory with 'charity' in mind.
If we plop down a few walls here and there and centralize armed forces currently in the middle east we can re-establish a Syrian sovereignty without any of the bullshit currently going on.


This is an accurate statement, yes.
It is substantially more neutral than arming and aiding rebels, and we're already doing bombing runs on ISIS, so this tackles the issues of those in Syria without concerning ourselves with a foreign power at all.


How many will buy this when they see pictures of places in recovery?

Tbh, the Syrian Civil War is probably going to take another 2 years at least to wrap up and resolve, and even then they'll probably be low level violence like Iraq for a while after

user, you're good at this.

Large parts of Syria are completely unscathered and function normally, hell there is still tourism in Syria.

That doesn't prevent journalists from using their usual tricks nor normies from gobbling it all up.


Absolutely and this violence will then be equated with terror by the MSM, just like they already equate it with Iraq and Afghansitan.

I fucking hope not. We need American companies to profit from the wall building. And we need American startups to grow a bit from it. NO ISRAELI firms or else..

*in

How fucking retarded would any of the sides involved here have to be in order to start something?

Kind of offtopic but according to some rumors Magal Security Systems will be involved.

Large parts of Syria are in stable regions, we're talking dropping convenient and enforceable barricades down in the unstable regions and having actually effective military action in the middle east. These safe zones are basically handing territory back to Assad and declaring it charity, and mark my words,
inbound en-masse once actions take place

Doesn't have to be Israeli. George Soros is a Hungarian-American. How much do you want to bet that he'll have a hand in building the wall? Don't give me libshit either. He always plays both sides of the coin.

Just call him a Jew

But why? Why can't we just send them back to the ALREADY safe zones? And handing it back to Assad, then we might as well send them back directly to the areas controlled by Assad.

Dont you see how absurd this whole thing is? It's always more more more and more.

That's like calling water wet. The point is he is a Hungarian born American, which means it wouldn't be an "Israeli Company" if he dipped his hand in the wall.

Handing the unstable land back to Assad "for the refugees".
This is the first step to solving the wound instead of applying costly band-aids. It also marks the end of the proxy-wars, with any luck. That I can't say for certain.

Is it possible that I might genetically be a Jew? Is that common?

Oh I don't know, probably CIA/Mossad tier retarded
:——————————-D

What does that have to do with this thread?

Well, if it's all that important to you, there are about 50,000 Jews in Hungary. That's about 0.1% of the population, so calm your tits.

Those civilians who have left have no interest in returning, at least those who have went to Europe and are now gibmedats. When their country needed them most, they took advantage of the Arab Spring situation and joined the mob heading to Europe. Also there is no such thing as charity when it comes to US relations to Syria, I'm guessing you're an underageb& for having already forgetting the sarin gas false flag that almost got us into a full scale conflict. If you are seriously thinking that having what would amount to be US bases in a country we have wanted to topple since the turn of the century is "charity " to Assad then you may as well go sign up for the Marines tomorrow since you'll be able to give charity to Assad and his people personally.

Trump's rhetoric so far has been we don't need to spend billions on the defense of other nations and yet we're posturing for another Iraq/Afghanistan eternal war in order to install puppets for the US/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Israel.

He's not the one that came up with it but he's been promoting it since the primaries.

Send them directly to areas controlled by Assad then.

Btw have you never heard the "Assad kills his own people" narrative? And now you think that handing safe zones back to Assad would work for normies?

This is the part that matters right? Fulfilling another campaign promise.

In the 90s intervention in the Balkans an American commander ordered his troops to fire on Russians occupying an airport, the only reason it didn't happen was the on the ground leader refused to follow orders


It's not an American problem in the first place
We have no business solving the wound there

Wesley Clark IIRC

We should build refugee camps in Iraq, Saudi,and Turkey. If the refugees refuse to go there and head for Europe they will be shot.

That's called Jewing the Jew.

was UN and not under Trump/Maddis
has not been confirmed or implied
it's being postured as charity to endangered Syrians but is in reality a way to stabilize and repatriate Syrian land to the Assad regime
no thanks
Nothing about these actions imply this in any way and you're not paying enough attention to understand what's going on. Just keep pretending a Bush is in office and maybe Holla Forums will flip again, yeah?


You have no idea how subversion is practically applied in foreign policy and certainly no idea when it is actually beneficial. This statement is why we cannot officially return them "to Assad", however.


I actually agree with this statement, but clearly Trump is going to shit on ISIS before leaving the Middle East. I don't know if I even want that to happen, but I'm glad he's taking the correct actions in the correct ways to do so.

So this is where the kids are.. 30% of them look white

On the bright side, anyone that will whine against the wall can be called an anti-semite

No clue what you're babbling about now. You were the one who claimed that these safe zones will render the narrative of fleeing terror invalid and talked about returning safe zones to Assad as charity .

Bullshit, the "safe zones" involve imposing a no fly zone which means military escalation and it is ripe for any and all kinds of kike false flagging. For fucks sake everybody here was flipping out when Hillary proposed a no fly zone because we knew of the resulting military escalation, the tiny silver lining here is that with improved Russian relations the no fly zone might not be used as a direct escalation to WW3 with Russia but it escalates our presence in Syria and can lead directly to conflict. I hope for cooperation with Syrian government and Russia on this so it isn't a complete cluster fuck and only leads to moderate beheaders being btfo but this is not a good sign at all as far as Trump's foreign policy is concerned and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. The cognitive dissonance ITT is insane, and yes, Trump fucked up here, bigly, even though I support nearly all other actions he has taken so far. There is no way to construe the US demanding a portion of foreign airspace as anything other than a neocohen escalation/fiat accompli scheme, don't be stupid.

Except it wasn't the UN, what's your source on that? The UN report was the one that said it may or may not have been an outside entity and probably not the Syrian government.

Also again, this isn't about "flipping Holla Forums". Holla Forums has been very outspoken about American intervention in Syria. All the SAA needs is air coordination with their ground troops and for the Israeli/US airforce to not bomb their positions and ISIS is eliminated. Trump has yet to say his intention is stabilizing Assad so there's no reason to believe that he intends to work with him as the Russians do. One more year of Assad and Russian airstrikes with no US involvement means ISIS is gone in the majority of Syria. There is no reason why the US has to spend any more resources in going against that by having troops on the ground to defend "safe zones" aka the definition of a military base.

Yup.

That is a big if, considering how hostile we have been to the Syrian government in general, and the multiple false flags that have been attempted such as the sarin gas. Why in the fuck would you put it past (((them))) to have a "Russian" or "Syrian" Jet conveniently "violate the safe zone and bomb civilians, goy"? Face it, we are fucked.

White Guilt and kike propaganda was not rational to begin with, especially as it pertains to geopolitics, this is an opportunity for people like Le Pen to take advantage of as a reason to send em back but the issue was always kike traitors in the EU who would have pushed for the Kalgergi-Coudenhove replacement scheme regardless. Also, even if this is used as a reason to send back the rapefugees that is not going to be a simple thing and it would arguably destabilize the region further or give another pretext for war when the "peaceful refugees" are killed by any number of terrorist organizations or mossad assets.

Fuck, so this is what's getting slid then.

BUMP

bump god fucking dammit

I'm aware you cannot read.
Here's the play by play.


I agree with this sentiment and I was among the crowd angry about that being implemented, Russia is making noise as well.
I think it might be posturing, but Trump could have actually fucked it up here, and I hope he rolls it back. The other, more important concept of middle-east quarantines is plenty valuable and not entirely tethered. We would want Russians to instead affirm they keep control of the airspace on lockdown.


I wont argue with your digits, but
is where I think we're getting this conflict from.
Here's a garbage picture to display what I mean.

Syria is no longer valuable enough. The purpose of US troops on the ground is to better manage our Kurdistan puppets and to have better time supplying and communicating with our agents in Syrian whose job is now to create puppet groups for the upcoming Geneva peace talks. A very important operation if you would like to see Assad weakened, or if you're Israeli/Saudi/Saudi satellites. A waste of time and money if you are an American citizen paying for it.

I don't remember his excellency Assad inviting US military into Syria, yankee get the fuck out back to USA.

Nothing comes between red cross jews and immigration shekels.
So, nope.

shh dont hurt burger feelings or they might want to "liberate" your country

I'm surprised Holla Forums isn't more hyped by this. Isn't this almost EXACTLY the prophecy that hatanon made all those months ago, saying he'd spoken to Trump at a rally?

("To save Europe, ALL 'refugees' must be sent to US-controlled safe zones in Syria.")

...

Qatar's endorsement of this verifies it is 100 percent about securing the Saudi/Qatar/UAE/Israeli Syrian pipeline, not some 3D chess which which circumvents it, in other words the same fucking foreign policy towards Syria is being pursued, if we are lucky we might avoid war with Russia.


You know that you can't just "capture" the land and airspace which is violently contested by almost a dozen different warring factions without direct military escalation, right? The only way I see this going over well is if he bombs the shit out of ISIS or "moderate" controlled territory to construct a "safe zone" there, and the part in the article about "dangerous proximity" to Syrian and Russian troops means that that is not fucking likely, the whole "dangerous proximity" thing also means that their cooperation is not assured, this is 100 percent a continuation of Hillary's foreign policy, looks like Trump is shaping up to be Bush 2.0. Oh well, at least we can deal with the beaner infestation as a concession prize for getting fucked by ZOG yet again.

Goddamn if this is true i will fucking jizz so hard it will break a hole in the ozone layer

Only small percentage of migrants are coming from Syria and most sit in camps in Turkey. EU is building immigration centers in Mali to bring more nubian "workers"

I appreciate the picture, but my point is you cannot have this safe zone without having the troops to defend it and the people building it. This is a proposal to build what would amount to an Iraq-tier green zone. The purpose is either half baked for its intended purpose of aiding the desperate, poor women and children of Syria or a way to increase our involvement in Syria.

Unless the plan is to build everything so far away from the conflict that military presence is unnecessary which is unlikely.

This is accurate, but we already have the forces to do this. If we migrate the 4000 troops in Iraq to aide the 500 troops in Syria, we have enough to "stabilize" a "safe zone" or two, especially if we cooperate with local friendly forces.
We're already bombing both of those groups and have been since Maddis got in charge. It's also directly implied that the safezone will be in formerly ISIS territory, which is why I've been posting about giving it back to Assad.


Thank fuck someone sees it.

STOP
getting
digits
Green Zones require tiny amounts of troops to maintain and are an important part of our ability to disengage from Iraq.
The pitch is
and the reality seems to be
but for the explicit purpose of aiding Assad in regaining control of destabilized regions.

Right. So if we build safezones in Syria for the actual refugees to go to, the rest of the pretenders won't have a cover story anymore. I think this move will be very good for Europe.

…which is no longer a problem now that the US is going to get behind Assad instead, right?

This sort of thing is what can stabilize the Middle East, if Trump allows the military to actually execute things properly.

The biggest problem with the Middle East is its people and religion. They are a savage people with barbaric tribes who are used to a government based on hierarchy. Their people for the most part despise western culture and ideology, but want to enjoy its benefits. Socialism in all of its forms is guaranteed to fail them, but their people are too naturally inclined to corruption and too degenerated for the free market alone to help them.

In terms of bringing stability, the best way which has been demonstrated has been to put military forces into place as something more akin to palace guards than anything else, with troops securing areas but not necessarily going out and about more than necessary within a city. The local police and military receive training, allowing them to handle things more effectively with their own local knowledge than they would otherwise. Grants provided to the owners of local small businesses and people working in fields such as engineering or medical can be used to get locals working through the use of an immediate stimulus (and seeing as this is from foreign aid, without the usual difficulties caused by a tax-based stimulus).

Local governments are the main trouble, because they invariably fuck things up. If you put a dictator in place, you may get good results for a while, but things will go to hell. And the people of the middle east are at this stage in development fundamentally incapable of handling republican democracy. The best you can hope for is the implementation of a constitution based on the original US documentation, putting a dictator in charge of things and a parliament to keep him in check. It's far from a perfect solution, but what happens in a century isn't something we can really concern ourselves with.

The military bases can be slowly reduced in terms of activity as rebel forces calm down on their own. Trade with the US and other countries being opened up are both important, to help ensure that the people have plentiful access to food and supplies.

With this all done, the biggest problem remains Islam itself. Until that religion is dead, the Middle East will never cease being at war.

Green Zones require tiny amounts of troops compared to what? The invasion force in 2003? Compared to our current involvement in Syria, it's moving towards another post-Saddam Iraq "war" or the Afghanistan "war". I will again say that all Syria needs is airstrikes alongside its infantry in order to properly set up safe zones. They do not need us to pay for the occupation of destabilized regions, which is what this is being spun as. Trump has yet to say that the explicit purpose of this is for aiding Assad, so I will go by our track record of dealing with Syria for the past 10 years.

Also you never gave me a source for saying the UN was behind the sarin gas, I really want it.

Bullshit, Mattis has been bombing ISIS and "moderates" he has not done anything to Russian or Syrian government forces so far and he better fucking not.

Fixed. Also Assad's leadership is secular in nature, it was the Sunni goatfuckers who start acting like niggers when instigated by Western agents in the Arab Spring of 2011. Back then the US was saying that Assad was killing the democratic process by killing radical Islamists who were chimping out.

So how or why is any of this our problem? I understand that Russia is there because they're allied with Syria, but I can't see a good reason for US involvement. Wasn't Trump running on an isolationist military platform instead of interventionism like Obama, Bush, and would-be Hillary?

This is essentially what I'm saying, thanks for putting it substantially better user


Green zone maintenance requires less than 5,000 troops and can be eventually passed off to the newly stable powers, just as we did in Iraq. Since we are not at odds with Syria anymore (hopefully) I think this will be an expedited form of that process.
My bad here, as far as I can tell it was NATO who claimed Assad and Libyan officials used Sarin gas, where the UN refuted these claims. In another occasion, a group of members from a UN think tank claimed a ruling official of one of the many nations we destabilized used chemical weaponry, which was later proven to be false. This is what I'm referring to. Anyone know which it was?
In any case, we may see a deployment of an additional 1000 troops in the middle east. Just remember that's 5500 total and not 180,000.


Those groups.
Remember, I'm the one arguing we will work with Syria on the proposals, not the other way around.

I fucking hope so, but I am on hypervigilant alert for schlomo's typical tricks in the mean time, Trump is no good if we don't hold him accountable and use our meme warfare to push him and the population at large as far right as possible, the election is over, and he only deserves credit when he does the right thing, period.

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly, but this news is exciting.
Hold him accountable on the No-Fly zone stuff, though. That does seem highly (((questionable))), and I wonder who got him to tack that on.

OIL. PETRODOLLAR.

They dont need any cover story. EU officially tell public that they import niggers to "save Europe from demographic crisis" - that mean import even cheaper slave labour to keep dying economic system alive few decades more.

Because he needs an excuse to deport the 'Syrian' rapefugees, and saying he has set up a safe zone or whatever is a great way of doing so. The kikes wanted the safe zones to be a pretext for a US invasion of Syria, instead it's going to be a pretext for saving Syria and Assad from the 'moderates' the last administration funded.

Dude, didn't we already establish that US trying to make a safe no fly zone on Syria would require it to go to war with Syria and Russia? Isn't that why we were trying our hardest to try to avoid Killary? Now Qatar suggests that Trump does exactly the same and he wants to increase the Military presence in Syria? This isn't even up for opinions this is capital BAD. The whole "for the civilians" talk is for cover. This is exactly what people didn't want.

THATS A SINGLE BATTALION. WITH THE AMOUNT OF REFUGEES IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PROBABLY 10 MILES ACROSS, SINCE THE REFUGEES NEED TO BE SEGREGATED FROM ALL MILITARY ASSETS. A MORE REASONABLE NUMBER IS A FULL INFANTRY BATTALION FOR BASE DEFENSES, A COMPANY FOR INTERNAL SECURITY (DEALING WITH THE RAPEFUGEES ETC) A COMPANY FOR PERIMETER PATROLS AND A SMALL OFFENSIVE CAPABILITY TO TAKE OUT MORTARS AND SUCH AS WELL AS TO SERVE AS A QUICK REACTION FORCE FOR PATROLS THAT TAKE CONTACT. AND THEN YOU NEED LOGISTICS AND SUCH.

I FIGURE 10K MEN IS A BETTER ESTIMATE TO ENSURE THEY ARE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY COMPLETE THEIR MISSION WITHOUT BEING UNDERMANNED. BUT THEN AGAIN THAT DEPENDS ON HOW LARGE OF A GREENZONE WE ARE TALKING AND HOW LONG IT TAKES TO SET UP DEFENSIVE WALLS AND BUFFER ZONES. SOMETHING ABOUT THE SIZE OF CAMP RAMADI WOULDNT BE TOO FAR FETCHED. AND THAT WAS QUITE THE OPERATION.

on that wall
kek

5k is nothing to the invasion force obviously, but 5k is a 1000% increase of the amount of troops we have in Syria now. And this is for a single safe zone which it's unlikely that we would just operate one.


We are not on good terms with Assad and I don't know why you think we are.

What makes you think this? Assad does not need our help of occupying ISIS held lands, all he needs are airstrikes which is what we have been depriving him of for the past 5 years. There is no reason why the US needs to have military installations on Syria soil other than to continue at undermining the Syrian government.

Because we have a President now that says we should keep Assad in power instead of toppling another regime. This isn't hard.


But we do need it for a fast excuse for deporting the muds - we can quite easily say

If you are stationing with fortifications, then you're fine. The goal would be to have Russian or Syrian forces contribute in the efforts to 'affirm the safety of the Safe Zone', and treat it as our job to establish, ditch, and establish again.
I do agree it will be a challenge, but I think there's enough to get things rolling.


We can be on good terms with Assad with little effort. "not being on good terms" isn't even an actual status, and diplomacy is not some slider that you move about slowly. It can be quite digital if you want it to be. Also, we currently have 500 active-duty troops in Syria, and we 4000 or so in Iraq.

Friendly reminder: pay attention to what you read.

It's the journalist who wrote this. Not Trump.
Trump has always been anti-ISIS and pro-Syria. He is supported by God Damned Putin.
We had an "that sucks" moment with Trump since 2015. Every time, after a few months or even a few days, the "that sucks" moment became a "this is awesome" moment because Trump activated his Trump cards (i.e. 4d chess). I think this is gonna be like all the other thousands of times and that sandniggers and religion of peace will be gone soon from syria and assad will be back in power

yes, it's clearly opening the door for a regular invasion

remember: these rarely work, they are almost always used as an excuse for provocations to invade

I hope so, and he does do that a lot. You can see him use a lot of his business negotiation tactics in his presidential actions already. He may just be setting something up for a more favorable outcome.

That said, we should still keep a very close eye on this shit.

Since I don't think we will be setting up our safe zones near SAA controleld territory, this seems to be more about retaining our control over gains that the YPG and Iraqi army has been making. I'm not familiar with what camps we had in Iraq in this area, but I would assume we would at least have 1-2 possibly more by Mosul and then another 1-2 across the Kurd controlled territories along the north.

Basically a race for Al Raqqa and making sure Assad doesn't regain control over his country.

To be fair they probably will be in close proximity, the American and Russian troops taking pictures smiling and brofisting each other.

This is fucking bullshit. Trump is going full kike with this

Going by what he said during the election, it ranges from Assad has to go to he should stay in power. Until he clarifies as president there's no reason to believe that he's still for Assad.

As for sending back "refugees", you don't need to send a few thousand troops to have an excuse to do that. There are plenty of refugee camps in Jordan that they can be sent to and aided for.

That's just wrong though. Assad does not trust the US to do anything right. This is him from the 20th:


archive.is/n130E

Politically he does. He needs some form of justification for why he is deporting all the Syrians, and it's either 'ISIS is beaten' or 'we have safe zones to send them to'. Which one do you think will happen faster?

And if the deportation of muslims was the entire purpose of setting up safe zones, they wouldn't have to be right ontop of territory just captured from ISIS or again green zones in Iraq but rather on the outskirts of the country where you don't need military presence to maintain them.

I read OP's stupid article, there is nothing in there whatsoever to indicate where those safe zones are going or what form they would take.

I thought having the Pentagon and the State Department coming up with the plan was enough of an implication of what kind of operation is going to be undertaken to create these safe zones.

Not now that Trump controls both of those too. This is not Obongo's admin any more.

END OF THE DAY SETTING UP SAFEZONES IS A MILITARY OPERATION. WHY WOULDNT THE PENTAGON AND STATE DEPARTMENT BE INVOLVED?

...

Can you fuck off with your cruise control?

Not my point, my point is this isn't for sending refugees back, it's for occupying Syria as bargaining chips during the peace talks for the benefit of other countries in the region, which again is why Qatar came out and praised this decision.

I wasn't referring specifically to US dictatorships, but to the form of system in general. Any system where you give absolute authority to one person has the potential to wind up like Best Korea.

But there's more to it than that. The reason the US liked putting dictators in place was because it means all you need to do is overthrow or pin the blame on the dictator. In the case of a smaller country, singular leadership weakens their ability to maintain power in political economy. Hence the reason that you need a constitution - you can't turn the people against a singular person because there is no singular person, and that single person can't turn everything to shit. I suppose "can't" is a very strong word here, but there's no absolutes when dealing with people (aside from the absolute of there being no absolutes).

Implementing a constitutionally bound dictatorship therefore does not just benefit the country, but it means that should a regime change occur within our own republic, those future enemies cannot undo the work that we performed in bringing the initial peace. Naturally, (((the ones who have been making these decisions))) have no desire for this to happen, as it runs contrary to their interests. They have actively undermined the United States military and ignored both economists and historians.

If Donald Trump were to do this in Syria, and possibly in other places, he could ensure a lasting peace in those regions. If he fails to do this, there are only three options - one, he is incompetent; two, he is corrupt; three, he is taking advise from the wrong people, and therefore lowering his own competency. Time and history will tell which of these happens.

Five years younger than Goebbels, Leni Riefenstahl starred mostly in snow-capped mountain dramas. By her published account Goebbels, freshly arrived as gauleiter in Berlin, had hung around the 1926 première of her movie The Sacred Mountain hoping for a glimpse of her; by his own diary’s testimony, he saw her in 1929 starring in the mountaineering movie Piz Palü, and found her a ‘delightful child.’ He probably met her at Magda’s society gatherings at Reichskanzler Platz in the autumn of 1932.

If it was for humanitarian purposes of setting up refugee camps to deport the ones in the US and Europe back to, you wouldn't need to talk to the Pentagon or the State Department.


I'm not arguing against a constitutional dictatorship in Syria since it worked in Afghanistan until the Soviets invaded and the US funded/trained radical Islamists to fight them who then gained large amounts of political power once the Soviets left.

If this was a peaceful transition initiated by Assad, which is most likely would have happened regardless given Assad's education and disposition if someone didn't instigate the Sunnis in his country into rebellion, then that would have been most ideal. The problem is all of the opposition that would exist in a government system like that would have been created by foreign influence stemming from the Arab Spring and Assad most likely won't accept that the rebels that were once in open warfare against him can now be Syrian politicians. There wouldn't be any kind of lasting peace in that kind of system.

BIG POSTING IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE. CAN YOU STOP BEING A SMALLPOSTER?

NOT VERY HUMANITARIAN TO SEND THEM ALL TO A 'GREEN ZONE' WHOSE DEFENSES WERENT DRAWN UP BY THE MILITARY

This. When you consider the alternative to Trump's presidency, the fact that he's able to make some positive changes is a win. Sometimes, circumstances are so dark that merely not losing everything is itself a victory.

...

You're a big poster

The Hitler thing? Yeah, he was a pretty fuckin' cool guy, huh?

This is a call for a war. A terrible idea. He was honeydicked into this. It must be stopped.

We don't need to be in Syria. Set non-intervention as the status quo and spend the money on the wall.

I want to habeeb.

Non-interventionism is a great idea in most respects, but you can't just look at the immediate moment when it comes to something like this.

The first thing to keep in mind: The paradigm will inevitably shift, and leftist will be the ones taking power in the country once again. It will shift back and forth over time until the inevitable collapse of the country, the birth of a new one, and the swinging of the paradigm once again.

The Middle East has resources to trade, but it can only trade those when it is stable. Leaving things as they are at the moment will only cause things to deteriorate further there. When things deteriorate, the people begin to suffer. This makes leftists and women who both think based on emotion wish to provide aid, which generally means taking those people in, just as what happened in Europe. But all this does is bring the problems over domestically. Now, the obvious solution is to simply close off immigration, but you have to keep in mind that people in the future will very quickly forget the lessons of the past and try again, sparking a similar situation again. Since we can't trust the people of the future do be wiser than ourselves, we have to correct the problem by creating a lasting stability within the region that will prevent the locals from attempting to emigrate from their country, by making it more desirable to stay there with their own people than to come to another place.

Because of its natural resources, if made politically stable, the Middle East could be a very profitable place to live. But this stability must be implemented in such a way that the market will enhance the lives of the locals as a whole, not just those at the top. To do this means giving funding from the bottom, to lower level businesses and the common man, while still keeping a government of sufficient authoritarian basis to account for the more barbaric disposition of the natives. Of course, where care needs to be considered is looking at the cost versus benefits. With a system like this, the US could guarantee free trade agreements with these states as part of the aid, benefiting the economies of both nations, and the Middle Eastern nations in particular. Such is the way of free trade.

Non-interventionist is not the policy that a country like the US should take. Nor should the policy be to become the world police. Instead, we should be what was intended from the start: a city on a hill, with the best and brightest in the world, with the strongest military, the strongest economy, and a will directed to the future. When stability is needed, we should be willing to aid this.

Of course, there are some caveats to that forgotten all too often. Paying money to another government directly? This has never worked out well. And taking out loans, being reliant on other nations? Completely disgusting behavior. Ours should be a way of life meaning that we can be self-sufficient in emergency, but made stronger by casting a light on the world.

Short term good. Removes the excuse for letting in millions of rapefugees. Makes it logical to send them back home because it's no longer dangerous. Also isn't a direct challenge to Russian operations or Syrian sovereignty.
Long term bad if this situation persists and runs up cost.