Understandably, most people were quite infuriated when news emerged that a US led airstrike had destroyed a Syrian government position near Aleppo, yesterday, causing the position and nearby area to fall to ISIS. According to the US, this airstrike was a case of mistaken identity, and that the US would never bomb a Syrian position.

Russia responded pointing out that it was impossible to mistake the government army for a terrorist one. The timing of course was quite horrible, Russia and the US had just brokered a truce, with the intentions of allowing humanitarian aid into the city.

I'm quite interested in this matter, largely because there are some things which aren't adding up at all. I can tell that a lot of the military movements in and around Syria are more political than they are anything else.

One of the agreements the US led coalition agreed to for the truce was to get the rebels to not associate with the jihadists. I find this point interesting, because the US didn't fulfill this, despite being perfectly able to.

This is in conjunction with my confusion as to why the USA isn't pressuring countries like Turkey to stop buying oil from ISIS. It's a really easy thing to do, but just like this 'accidental' strike that somehow hits a strategic government army position, these moves (or the lack thereof) propagate conflict in the area.

I understand that the USA stands to gain from continuing the conflict, so I'd posit that this latest strike by the USA is a strategic move to destabalise the area further in order to create more favourable conditions for both the rebels and the USA itself.

What I dislike about this incident though is that it benefits ISIS, who really need to be done away with ASAP. I don't know why the USA doesn't use it's influence to bear down on countries who support ISIS, but a long term and well thought out strategy is beginning to emerge. One in which this incident, any many others which had puzzled me previously begin to make more sense:

The USA is in this war for it's own interests.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

I think this relies waaaaaaaaaay too heavily on circumstantial evidence. Australia was involved in this incident, too, as were the other members of the US coalition, so are you saying there is a vast multinational corporate conspiracy that has infected all these governments to prop up ISIS because... reasons? There's no doubt that the war has been a proxy war between Russia (pro-Assad) and the US (pro-Kurds and other moderates), but that political nature has nothing to do with this incident. Why on earth would the US negotiate a cease-fire just to violate it? As for Turkey, that country poses a strategic dilemma in that we would really like them to stay in the European sphere and so we make every effort not to alienate them, so pressuring them isn't as much of a no-brainer as you portray it. While I think our efforts in Turkey are doomed to failure, the fact remains that this has pretty much been the US strategy for a while, and so I don't see the conspiracy you're reading into this.

I say all this as justification for the next question:Do you have any actual evidence to support this? I may not be a top-ranking strategy official, but "Hey, let's support the people that routinely advocate for our destruction because our businesses told us to because reasons!" doesn't really make sense; it sounds like a conspiracy one would hear about the US on RT.

Bailey <3

"For often evil men are rich, and good men poor;
But we will not exchange with them
Our virtue for their wealth, since one abides always,
While riches change their owners every day." - Solon, Plutarch's "Life of Solon"

At 9/19/2016 8:57:15 AM, SolonKR wrote:I think this relies waaaaaaaaaay too heavily on circumstantial evidence. Australia was involved in this incident, too, as were the other members of the US coalition, so are you saying there is a vast multinational corporate conspiracy that has infected all these governments to prop up ISIS because... reasons? There's no doubt that the war has been a proxy war between Russia (pro-Assad) and the US (pro-Kurds and other moderates), but that political nature has nothing to do with this incident. Why on earth would the US negotiate a cease-fire just to violate it? As for Turkey, that country poses a strategic dilemma in that we would really like them to stay in the European sphere and so we make every effort not to alienate them, so pressuring them isn't as much of a no-brainer as you portray it. While I think our efforts in Turkey are doomed to failure, the fact remains that this has pretty much been the US strategy for a while, and so I don't see the conspiracy you're reading into this.

I say all this as justification for the next question:Do you have any actual evidence to support this? I may not be a top-ranking strategy official, but "Hey, let's support the people that routinely advocate for our destruction because our businesses told us to because reasons!" doesn't really make sense; it sounds like a conspiracy one would hear about the US on RT.

Yes, Australia is involved too, and I was listening to our PM's comment on the matter. He clearly grasps that the war and Aus involvement is political, and said as much himself. Australians haven't ever been under the delusion that we were fighting for a noble cause however. Our support for the US is a display of our support for the US interests, who play a major part in the Anzus treaty. I didn't mean to come off as critical of the USA, since Australia is currently doing far more morally controversial things in our off-shore detention centres for refugees.

What I do believe however is that this particular accident aligns with a US goal to prolong the war. A continued war would result in a fear weaker Syrian state, which means natural resources and land will be more difficult for the government to control over time. I wasn't attacking this plan, as I know the US has done it before to Iran with varying success.

What I am critical of is the fact that ISIS benefits from this even more than the USA does. While the USA does stand to gain a strategical edge by continuing the conflict, ISIS stands to gain even more. It's my opinion that the USA does not perceive ISIS as a threat and that they will eventually crumple on their own accord. At the very least, the USA appears confident in their abilities to suppress ISIS when the need arises. Currently the US efforts against ISIS can't really be called suppression. Russia has previously criticised the US for not taking measures that it would normally take when the USA's interests were involved. Pressure on Turkey for example would be effective as Turkey is suffering diminishing relations with it's neighbour countries, including Austria, Greece and Russia. They understand perfectly that they can't afford to keep offending this up, thus pressuring them right now would be almost certainly achieve desirable results.

It's not that I think there is a 'consipiracy' so much as a completely logical and understandable decision made for US interests, which we know they have made in the past. By committing troops and military resources to Syria, the USA is making an investment. Naturally, they are going to want a return on that investment. I think the only people who believe that we the coalition are there to save civilians would be US citizens. I certainly don't get that vibe from Australians, who generally believe we're just there to maintain strong bonds with the US. I don't know what perception is in the European countries, but I'd wager they aren't under any self righteous illusions either.

If the US wanted to end the war, they wouldn't be making moves to prolong it. Russia actually has a vested interest in ending the conflict, hence their attempts to work with the US have been the most genuine. This break in ceasefire destabalises efforts for collaboration between Moscow and Washington, which serves the interests of Washington, not Moscow.

I don't mind or care about what the USA wants in the middle East, my concern comes mainly from the unintentional benefits that ISIS reaps. The USA may believe that they aren't a threat, however it isn't possible for anyone to know how influential the cancer will be in future.

Stamping them out now may cost more money in the short term, but waiting for them to get weaker (or hoping Russia takes care of them) allows extraneous variables to exist outside of allied control, which is unwise.

At the very least, the complexity of the situation proves the coalition is not there to save lives. We're obviously there to make money, as we have done in the past. The British investigation of their own involvement in Iraq made that finding explicit. I believe the USA themselves admit their intentions in Iran were for the oil. The first person to admit so was the US general himself. If we want to hide whatever motivations brought us to the middle east, so be it. However I don't believe that terrorist should ever be allowed to benefit from our or the USA's pursuit of it's corporate interests.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Re: "Do you have any actual evidence to support this? I may not be a top-ranking strategy official, but "Hey, let's support the people that routinely advocate for our destruction because our businesses told us to because reasons!" doesn't really make sense; it sounds like a conspiracy one would hear about the US on RT."

The events occurred, and currently an investigation is going on. Right now is the best time to speculate. In my opinion a Russia or Syrian investigation would find that the bombing was deliberate, and a coalition one would find the opposite.

I think it's more of a conspiracy to believe that we're there for purely noble reasons. Who on earth believes stuff like that nowadays? I've never actually met someone who thinks like that. The USA is a war mongering state and we show our support to ensure a stable relationship in the face of China's rise (which is a local thing). NZ actually disagrees with Aus on this. They think war for 'national interest' is stupid and have actually undermined the Anzus alliance in the past on that very basis. They even refused to take part in the 2003 invasion, which just goes to show how idealistic they are.

The US populace should probably be aware that their government is a lot smarter than they are, and a lot more decisive than they think. If US citizens actually believe things like 'The USA is fighting a war for humanity' or something similar, I would speculate that you watch too much local media, and not enough foreign news.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Of course the US is in the war for its own self-interest. That's why we've fought almost every war we've ever fought. Every country fights wars in its own self interest. Making a thread to prove that would be like making a thread that said "Grass is Green"; there'd be no point, and I would never argue against that because I would be incorrect. But, you aren't saying that, and so the dichotomy you draw between "the war is for corporate interests" and "the war is for noble causes" is false. You're saying we're fighting because of, "the USA's pursuit of its corporate interests." There is an obvious distinction, there, and the onus is on you to prove a few things to show that your position is credible.

1. What corporate interests the war serves2. Why those corporate interests are able to significantly influence the foreign policy in this case3. Why the US would prioritize said corporate interests over its own national security.4. Why the US would agree to a ceasefire only to renege

Those are a good start, at least.

Bailey <3

"For often evil men are rich, and good men poor;
But we will not exchange with them
Our virtue for their wealth, since one abides always,
While riches change their owners every day." - Solon, Plutarch's "Life of Solon"

At 9/19/2016 9:59:02 AM, SolonKR wrote:Of course the US is in the war for its own self-interest. That's why we've fought almost every war we've ever fought. Every country fights wars in its own self interest. Making a thread to prove that would be like making a thread that said "Grass is Green"; there'd be no point, and I would never argue against that because I would be incorrect. But, you aren't saying that, and so the dichotomy you draw between "the war is for corporate interests" and "the war is for noble causes" is false. You're saying we're fighting because of, "the USA's pursuit of its corporate interests." There is an obvious distinction, there, and the onus is on you to prove a few things to show that your position is credible.

1. What corporate interests the war serves2. Why those corporate interests are able to significantly influence the foreign policy in this case3. Why the US would prioritize said corporate interests over its own national security.4. Why the US would agree to a ceasefire only to renege

Those are a good start, at least.

I don't those points address the right questions. When I say the US is in it for it's 'national interests' I mean as opposed to the stated motive of fighting terrorism.>The Assad regime is deeply unsympathetic towards Western ideals. If the regime were undermined, the USA would be able to project power into the middle east far more effectively. Russia understands this and thus decided to fully support the Assad regime.>Currently the Assad regimes greatest enemy is ISIS and the Syrian rebels. The USA is deliberately not doing much to fight ISIS because they are in open conflict with Syria.>The USA chose to say nothing about Turkey buying up ISIS oil because turkey perceives both the Kurds and Assad as a threat, and thus supplies ISIS in a proxy war with both. This aligns with a US goal of undermining the Assad regime, which is why the US does not comment on Turkey's support of ISIS. The USA clearly cannot be seen buying Oil from ISIS directly, so it only makes sense that an ally of the USA does it instead. Yes, Turkey and the USA are allies, much to Russia's dismay.>If Turkey had no stake in the war but bought oil from ISIS for whatever reason, if the USA had a goal of fighting ISIS, the USA would condemn Turkey and call for international pressure to force Turkey to abandon it's choice of supply. The USA however clearly isn't interested in stopping capital flow towards ISIS.>ISIS does not pose a threat to US national security. As I said before, ISIS is weak and can be crushed at any time. Furthermore, the threat of terrorism is actually a trivial threat blown widely out of proportion in order to facilitate the military intervention currently seen.>The USA mitigates the effects of terrorism on themselves by fighting radicalism, not ISIS. It's radical jihadists that become terrorists in other countries. The USA appreciates this fact and thus takes measures to prevent it. ISIS is treated as a separate issue not relevant to domestic terrorism.>The US stands to benefit from breaking the ceasefire. As mentioned, ISIS and the opposition to the Assad regime would quickly fall if the USA worked with Russia. Therefore it is in the USA's best interests to not work with Russia. Breaking a truce serves this purpose perfectly. Russia has already expressed their frustration with the lack of cooperation, it's not them who is blocking bilateral agreements.>The US support for rebels is unambiguous. However, the USA did not fulfill a promise to Russia to get the rebels to separate from the Jihadists. This was achieved by making confusing and contradictory requests of the rebels, which resulted in no changes occurring.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

At 9/19/2016 8:09:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:Understandably, most people were quite infuriated when news emerged that a US led airstrike had destroyed a Syrian government position near Aleppo, yesterday, causing the position and nearby area to fall to ISIS. According to the US, this airstrike was a case of mistaken identity, and that the US would never bomb a Syrian position.

Russia responded pointing out that it was impossible to mistake the government army for a terrorist one. The timing of course was quite horrible, Russia and the US had just brokered a truce, with the intentions of allowing humanitarian aid into the city.

I'm quite interested in this matter, largely because there are some things which aren't adding up at all. I can tell that a lot of the military movements in and around Syria are more political than they are anything else.

One of the agreements the US led coalition agreed to for the truce was to get the rebels to not associate with the jihadists. I find this point interesting, because the US didn't fulfill this, despite being perfectly able to.

This is in conjunction with my confusion as to why the USA isn't pressuring countries like Turkey to stop buying oil from ISIS. It's a really easy thing to do, but just like this 'accidental' strike that somehow hits a strategic government army position, these moves (or the lack thereof) propagate conflict in the area.

I understand that the USA stands to gain from continuing the conflict, so I'd posit that this latest strike by the USA is a strategic move to destabalise the area further in order to create more favourable conditions for both the rebels and the USA itself.

What I dislike about this incident though is that it benefits ISIS, who really need to be done away with ASAP. I don't know why the USA doesn't use it's influence to bear down on countries who support ISIS, but a long term and well thought out strategy is beginning to emerge. One in which this incident, any many others which had puzzled me previously begin to make more sense:

The USA is in this war for it's own interests.

I've been warning that Obama is on Islam's side for years. Liberals don't care. This administration has given every reason to believe they are not on our side, but still...the masses follow like zombies.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 9/19/2016 10:54:34 AM, brontoraptor wrote:I've been warning that Obama is on Islam's side for years. Liberals don't care. This administration has given every reason to believe they are not on our side, but still...the masses follow like zombies.

Well, no. This is not specific to an administration. I'm saying that supporting ISIS actually falls within the USA national interest entirely, thus interpreting recent events as being indicative of ISIS support is rational and justified.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

At 9/19/2016 10:54:34 AM, brontoraptor wrote:I've been warning that Obama is on Islam's side for years. Liberals don't care. This administration has given every reason to believe they are not on our side, but still...the masses follow like zombies.

Well, no. This is not specific to an administration. I'm saying that supporting ISIS actually falls within the USA national interest entirely, thus interpreting recent events as being indicative of ISIS support is rational and justified.

They burn children alive, drown people in cages, rape, take sex slaves, behead their enemies, and mass attack civilians. It might be in your best interest, but it's not in mine.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 9/19/2016 10:54:34 AM, brontoraptor wrote:I've been warning that Obama is on Islam's side for years. Liberals don't care. This administration has given every reason to believe they are not on our side, but still...the masses follow like zombies.

Well, no. This is not specific to an administration. I'm saying that supporting ISIS actually falls within the USA national interest entirely, thus interpreting recent events as being indicative of ISIS support is rational and justified.

They burn children alive, drown people in cages, rape, take sex slaves, behead their enemies, and mass attack civilians. It might be in your best interest, but it's not in mine.

It's in the US national interest even if you find their actions rather perturbing personally.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

At 9/19/2016 10:54:34 AM, brontoraptor wrote:I've been warning that Obama is on Islam's side for years. Liberals don't care. This administration has given every reason to believe they are not on our side, but still...the masses follow like zombies.

Well, no. This is not specific to an administration. I'm saying that supporting ISIS actually falls within the USA national interest entirely, thus interpreting recent events as being indicative of ISIS support is rational and justified.

They burn children alive, drown people in cages, rape, take sex slaves, behead their enemies, and mass attack civilians. It might be in your best interest, but it's not in mine.

It's in the US national interest even if you find their actions rather perturbing personally.

Chaos and destablization in Europe is in the U.S.'s national interest? I disagree with that. It depends on who you are labeling the U.S. as actually being. It wasn't in Orlando, Paris, Cologne, San Bernerdino or Boston's best interest. If Barack is the U.S. then complete chaos is the objective.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 9/19/2016 10:54:34 AM, brontoraptor wrote:I've been warning that Obama is on Islam's side for years. Liberals don't care. This administration has given every reason to believe they are not on our side, but still...the masses follow like zombies.

Well, no. This is not specific to an administration. I'm saying that supporting ISIS actually falls within the USA national interest entirely, thus interpreting recent events as being indicative of ISIS support is rational and justified.

They burn children alive, drown people in cages, rape, take sex slaves, behead their enemies, and mass attack civilians. It might be in your best interest, but it's not in mine.

It's in the US national interest even if you find their actions rather perturbing personally.

Chaos and destablization in Europe is in the U.S.'s national interest? I disagree with that. It depends on who you are labeling the U.S. as actually being. It wasn't in Orlando, Paris, Cologne, San Bernerdino or Boston's best interest. If Barack is the U.S. then complete chaos is the objective.

Nonsense. ISIS represents an opportunity for the USA to use military intervention at will the in the middle east. It is a strategically intelligent move for the US to make for them to 'inadvertently' support ISIS. No matter who the next president will be, the US will continue to play it's power projection game in order to remain influential throughout the region.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

At 9/19/2016 10:54:34 AM, brontoraptor wrote:I've been warning that Obama is on Islam's side for years. Liberals don't care. This administration has given every reason to believe they are not on our side, but still...the masses follow like zombies.

Well, no. This is not specific to an administration. I'm saying that supporting ISIS actually falls within the USA national interest entirely, thus interpreting recent events as being indicative of ISIS support is rational and justified.

They burn children alive, drown people in cages, rape, take sex slaves, behead their enemies, and mass attack civilians. It might be in your best interest, but it's not in mine.

It's in the US national interest even if you find their actions rather perturbing personally.

Chaos and destablization in Europe is in the U.S.'s national interest? I disagree with that. It depends on who you are labeling the U.S. as actually being. It wasn't in Orlando, Paris, Cologne, San Bernerdino or Boston's best interest. If Barack is the U.S. then complete chaos is the objective.

Nonsense. ISIS represents an opportunity for the USA to use military intervention at will the in the middle east. It is a strategically intelligent move for the US to make for them to 'inadvertently' support ISIS. No matter who the next president will be, the US will continue to play it's power projection game in order to remain influential throughout the region.

Then they should have kept their forces in Iraq. They would own the region.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 9/19/2016 12:54:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:Then they should have kept their forces in Iraq. They would own the region.

No, the US interest in having troops in the middle east is currently to shape pro-Western ideals. The US will only put troops in places which further it's interest or will provide a return for that military investment at a later day. If having troops in Iraq does not accomplish any goal except tie up resources and waste tax payer dollars, there isn't any incentive for the US to keep those troops there.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

At 9/19/2016 8:09:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:Understandably, most people were quite infuriated when news emerged that a US led airstrike had destroyed a Syrian government position near Aleppo, yesterday, causing the position and nearby area to fall to ISIS. According to the US, this airstrike was a case of mistaken identity, and that the US would never bomb a Syrian position.

Russia responded pointing out that it was impossible to mistake the government army for a terrorist one. The timing of course was quite horrible, Russia and the US had just brokered a truce, with the intentions of allowing humanitarian aid into the city.

I'm quite interested in this matter, largely because there are some things which aren't adding up at all. I can tell that a lot of the military movements in and around Syria are more political than they are anything else.

One of the agreements the US led coalition agreed to for the truce was to get the rebels to not associate with the jihadists. I find this point interesting, because the US didn't fulfill this, despite being perfectly able to.

This is in conjunction with my confusion as to why the USA isn't pressuring countries like Turkey to stop buying oil from ISIS. It's a really easy thing to do, but just like this 'accidental' strike that somehow hits a strategic government army position, these moves (or the lack thereof) propagate conflict in the area.

I understand that the USA stands to gain from continuing the conflict, so I'd posit that this latest strike by the USA is a strategic move to destabalise the area further in order to create more favourable conditions for both the rebels and the USA itself.

What I dislike about this incident though is that it benefits ISIS, who really need to be done away with ASAP. I don't know why the USA doesn't use it's influence to bear down on countries who support ISIS, but a long term and well thought out strategy is beginning to emerge. One in which this incident, any many others which had puzzled me previously begin to make more sense:

The USA is in this war for it's own interests.

Regardless of the situation who did it and why I can't think of an instance that our government has done anything from the goodness of their black little hearts. Because words do matter, please do not use USA when it's solely the government, We the people are the USA, the government is a twisted representation of us. If these wars were taken to a vote I don't think we'd be involved, but they do these things for their own agenda making it sound like it's for us aka USA and the sheeple believe it.

At 9/19/2016 12:54:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:Then they should have kept their forces in Iraq. They would own the region.

No, the US interest in having troops in the middle east is currently to shape pro-Western ideals. The US will only put troops in places which further it's interest or will provide a return for that military investment at a later day. If having troops in Iraq does not accomplish any goal except tie up resources and waste tax payer dollars, there isn't any incentive for the US to keep those troops there.

I agree, and I think what people don't see is the goal is to drag these things out as long as possible. We could have stopped the flow of oil that isis has made so much money off of. There's lots of things that could have been done but it would have ended too quickly. Think back to the Iraq war and the massive land battle with the tanks etc, how big of an are did that encompass? Certainly the same sort of thing could be done to sweep them out of a large portion of the country. But getting half involved keeps it going for whatever end game our government has cooked up in their minds.

At 9/19/2016 1:09:48 PM, kevin24018 wrote:Regardless of the situation who did it and why I can't think of an instance that our government has done anything from the goodness of their black little hearts. Because words do matter, please do not use USA when it's solely the government, We the people are the USA, the government is a twisted representation of us. If these wars were taken to a vote I don't think we'd be involved, but they do these things for their own agenda making it sound like it's for us aka USA and the sheeple believe it.

Regardless of citizen opinion, a liberal democracy such as the USA uses elected representatives. Thus we really don't have a choice but to label the country as a single collective. If it were China I could understand, the mandate of the government might be completely opposed by 100% of the populace. This doesn't happen in the USA, where the people elect their representatives.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

At 9/19/2016 1:09:48 PM, kevin24018 wrote:Regardless of the situation who did it and why I can't think of an instance that our government has done anything from the goodness of their black little hearts. Because words do matter, please do not use USA when it's solely the government, We the people are the USA, the government is a twisted representation of us. If these wars were taken to a vote I don't think we'd be involved, but they do these things for their own agenda making it sound like it's for us aka USA and the sheeple believe it.

Regardless of citizen opinion, a liberal democracy such as the USA uses elected representatives. Thus we really don't have a choice but to label the country as a single collective. If it were China I could understand, the mandate of the government might be completely opposed by 100% of the populace. This doesn't happen in the USA, where the people elect their representatives.

I guess what I'm saying is they are "suppose" to represent us, but I think polls would show many times the majority are against these things. Was Vietnam in the best interest of the U.S.? Many argued it wasn't, what has history shown?

At 9/19/2016 1:24:54 PM, kevin24018 wrote:I guess what I'm saying is they are "suppose" to represent us, but I think polls would show many times the majority are against these things. Was Vietnam in the best interest of the U.S.? Many argued it wasn't, what has history shown?

Undoubtedly there are always dissenters within every country. But that doesn't mean we change our language. We don't talk like that about any country and the USA isn't an exception.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

At 9/19/2016 8:09:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:I'm quite interested in this matter, largely because there are some things which aren't adding up at all. I can tell that a lot of the military movements in and around Syria are more political than they are anything else.

Most often when things don't add up, it's due to a strange mixture of abundance and lack of information alongside the fog of war. I personally don't know what to make of the occasion regarding friendly fire, but if you have information of a precarious nature, then please forward it.

One of the agreements the US led coalition agreed to for the truce was to get the rebels to not associate with the jihadists. I find this point interesting, because the US didn't fulfill this, despite being perfectly able to.

Agents and operatives of SAD/SOG, the CIA's paramilitary branches (https://en.wikipedia.org...), train and weaponize various rebel factions around the world. But that's where it ends. They don't control and lead them.

This is in conjunction with my confusion as to why the USA isn't pressuring countries like Turkey to stop buying oil from ISIS. It's a really easy thing to do, but just like this 'accidental' strike that somehow hits a strategic government army position, these moves (or the lack thereof) propagate conflict in the area.

Pushing Erdogan to act in any way is very difficult. Following the coup, Erdogan temporarily cut power from the Incirlik air force base, from which strikes are conducted at ISIS, as payback for Obama's unwillingness to extradite the exiled Gulen.

I understand that the USA stands to gain from continuing the conflict, so I'd posit that this latest strike by the USA is a strategic move to destabalise the area further in order to create more favourable conditions for both the rebels and the USA itself.

A non sequitur, as the premise cannot support the conclusion. You're begging the question. Moreover, "who benefits?" is not a logical argument.

I don't know why the USA doesn't use it's influence to bear down on countries who support ISIS

Bar Australia -- the only country to ever have assisted us in all of our wars -- America has never had the power to influence its allies by force of argument. France withdrew from the NATO Integrated Military Command Structures in 1966 and returned in 1996. Germany was always secretly involved with the Soviet Union, and now Russia, against U.S. interests. The U.K. was a basket case throughout the Cold War; it even received IMF loans in the 1970s due to a collapsing economy, which pushed it to join the EC/EU. And Turkey was always one coup away from chaos.

[...] but a long term and well thought out strategy is beginning to emerge. One in which this incident, any many others which had puzzled me previously begin to make more sense:The USA is in this war for it's own interests.

Begging the question again. Besides, Obama is leaving office in January. The new president will replace the entire State Department (foreign ministry) and the Pentagon (defense ministry), from janitor on up to the highest seat.

What's more, Obama hasn't had a grand strategy; there is no Obama doctrine. And now that he is leaving office it is becoming all the more clear how his lackadaisical approach to foreign policy has made the world increasingly chaotic.

At 9/19/2016 8:09:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:I'm quite interested in this matter, largely because there are some things which aren't adding up at all. I can tell that a lot of the military movements in and around Syria are more political than they are anything else.

Most often when things don't add up, it's due to a strange mixture of abundance and lack of information alongside the fog of war. I personally don't know what to make of the occasion regarding friendly fire, but if you have information of a precarious nature, then please forward it.

One of the agreements the US led coalition agreed to for the truce was to get the rebels to not associate with the jihadists. I find this point interesting, because the US didn't fulfill this, despite being perfectly able to.

Agents and operatives of SAD/SOG, the CIA's paramilitary branches (https://en.wikipedia.org...), train and weaponize various rebel factions around the world. But that's where it ends. They don't control and lead them.

This is in conjunction with my confusion as to why the USA isn't pressuring countries like Turkey to stop buying oil from ISIS. It's a really easy thing to do, but just like this 'accidental' strike that somehow hits a strategic government army position, these moves (or the lack thereof) propagate conflict in the area.

Pushing Erdogan to act in any way is very difficult. Following the coup, Erdogan temporarily cut power from the Incirlik air force base, from which strikes are conducted at ISIS, as payback for Obama's unwillingness to extradite the exiled Gulen.

I understand that the USA stands to gain from continuing the conflict, so I'd posit that this latest strike by the USA is a strategic move to destabalise the area further in order to create more favourable conditions for both the rebels and the USA itself.

A non sequitur, as the premise cannot support the conclusion. You're begging the question. Moreover, "who benefits?" is not a logical argument.

I don't know why the USA doesn't use it's influence to bear down on countries who support ISIS

Bar Australia -- the only country to ever have assisted us in all of our wars -- America has never had the power to influence its allies by force of argument. France withdrew from the NATO Integrated Military Command Structures in 1966 and returned in 1996. Germany was always secretly involved with the Soviet Union, and now Russia, against U.S. interests. The U.K. was a basket case throughout the Cold War; it even received IMF loans in the 1970s due to a collapsing economy, which pushed it to join the EC/EU. And Turkey was always one coup away from chaos.

[...] but a long term and well thought out strategy is beginning to emerge. One in which this incident, any many others which had puzzled me previously begin to make more sense:The USA is in this war for it's own interests.

Begging the question again. Besides, Obama is leaving office in January. The new president will replace the entire State Department (foreign ministry) and the Pentagon (defense ministry), from janitor on up to the highest seat.

What's more, Obama hasn't had a grand strategy; there is no Obama doctrine. And now that he is leaving office it is becoming all the more clear how his lackadaisical approach to foreign policy has made the world increasingly chaotic.

totally agree, well said, in general everything is about self interest, goes without saying, identifying and understanding that can be impossible at times for the reasons stated above with regards to transparency, it certainly fuels the isolationist feelings I would think and the conspiracy (right or wrong) for the reason of our involvement.

At 9/19/2016 8:09:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:Russia responded pointing out that it was impossible to mistake the government army for a terrorist one. The timing of course was quite horrible, Russia and the US had just brokered a truce, with the intentions of allowing humanitarian aid into the city.

At 9/19/2016 8:09:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:Russia responded pointing out that it was impossible to mistake the government army for a terrorist one. The timing of course was quite horrible, Russia and the US had just brokered a truce, with the intentions of allowing humanitarian aid into the city.

At 9/19/2016 8:09:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:Russia responded pointing out that it was impossible to mistake the government army for a terrorist one. The timing of course was quite horrible, Russia and the US had just brokered a truce, with the intentions of allowing humanitarian aid into the city.

I don't think anyone can really claim any high ground. The Russians are doing just as much to prolong ISIS's power by bombing rebel aid as the US is by bombing Syrian government outposts. Truthfully, the Russian act today was far more severe in the overall effect on the Battle of Aleppo.

At 9/19/2016 8:09:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:Russia responded pointing out that it was impossible to mistake the government army for a terrorist one. The timing of course was quite horrible, Russia and the US had just brokered a truce, with the intentions of allowing humanitarian aid into the city.

I don't think anyone can really claim any high ground. The Russians are doing just as much to prolong ISIS's power by bombing rebel aid as the US is by bombing Syrian government outposts. Truthfully, the Russian act today was far more severe in the overall effect on the Battle of Aleppo.

The only thing I was here to criticise is the fact that the US strategy benefits ISIS. I know Russia's plan doesn't. Yes, 'tis true that everyone is doing mean things to each other and can't get along, but like I said to Solon, it's not really my concern. The point of my OP was to point out that the US most likely underestimates the influential power of ISIS to everyone's detriment.

To avoid sounding flippant, I am quite saddened for the people of Aleppo caught in the middle of this. If we want to discuss the moral atrocities being committed there I'm sure this thread will cater to that, but my interest is more towards the political and strategic side of things.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

At 9/19/2016 8:09:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:Russia responded pointing out that it was impossible to mistake the government army for a terrorist one. The timing of course was quite horrible, Russia and the US had just brokered a truce, with the intentions of allowing humanitarian aid into the city.

I don't think anyone can really claim any high ground. The Russians are doing just as much to prolong ISIS's power by bombing rebel aid as the US is by bombing Syrian government outposts. Truthfully, the Russian act today was far more severe in the overall effect on the Battle of Aleppo.

The only thing I was here to criticise is the fact that the US strategy benefits ISIS. I know Russia's plan doesn't. Yes, 'tis true that everyone is doing mean things to each other and can't get along, but like I said to Solon, it's not really my concern. The point of my OP was to point out that the US most likely underestimates the influential power of ISIS to everyone's detriment.

To avoid sounding flippant, I am quite saddened for the people of Aleppo caught in the middle of this. If we want to discuss the moral atrocities being committed there I'm sure this thread will cater to that, but my interest is more towards the political and strategic side of things.

The US does not internally underestimate the influential power of ISIS, but they try to downplay them in public reports and addresses.

At 9/19/2016 10:55:10 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:The US does not internally underestimate the influential power of ISIS, but they try to downplay them in public reports and addresses.

Is this true? From my perspective ISIS has been blown way out of proportion. Politicians could suggest that ISIS has the ability to attack US soil and the public would believe it simply because the media exaggerates exactly how potent and threatening they are.

I've always interpreted this as the methodology used by the coalition to enter the middle east in the first place. The stated intention is to fight terrorism, so it would be quite odd to go there to fight something that you're down playing at home. It would only mean reduced public support.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

At 9/19/2016 10:55:10 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:The US does not internally underestimate the influential power of ISIS, but they try to downplay them in public reports and addresses.

Is this true? From my perspective ISIS has been blown way out of proportion. Politicians could suggest that ISIS has the ability to attack US soil and the public would believe it simply because the media exaggerates exactly how potent and threatening they are.

I've always interpreted this as the methodology used by the coalition to enter the middle east in the first place. The stated intention is to fight terrorism, so it would be quite odd to go there to fight something that you're down playing at home. It would only mean reduced public support.

The US government's public reports have been found to exaggerate how effective they are in fighting ISIS: trying to make citizens think the war is working.

At 9/19/2016 11:10:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:The US government's public reports have been found to exaggerate how effective they are in fighting ISIS: trying to make citizens think the war is working.

Oh that's what you mean. Fascinating.

I thought the public were aware that boots on the ground were required to fight ISIS. A decade and a half of experience appears to only be enjoyed by the military.

"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

I think it makes sense that the US would attack Assad while saying it was an accident. We have no obligation to Assad. Besides, if we allow ISIS some room to retreat accross to from Iraq all the better. ISIS isn't going to win, so right now everyone especially the US and Russia are planning the after math of ISIS.

"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks