Hi AC,

Maybe one problem with any plan in connection with Syria which might upset the Saudis and Turkey is that a large majority of Syrians are Sunni, like ISIS, like the Saudis, like the Turks. Perhaps this is why the US can't be seen to be supporting Assad, whose Shi'ite/Alawite/Christian/Kurdish constituency represents, after all, barely 25% of the population. US: rock and hard place.

But the US somehow has to defeat ISIS without pissing off the Saudis and Turks too much. US: rock and hard place.

In the bigger picture, the US may be trying to keep the Saudis and Iranians from each other throats, but also effectively give the Iranians a free hand in Iraq. US: rock and hard place.

And of course, the US wants to keep backing the Kurds, who are on fairly friendly terms with Assad, but bitterly at odds with Turkey, another US ally. US: rock and hard place.

As for the US and Afghan rebels in 1979: the US supported anybody who opposed the Russians and their puppet government [puppet? well, yes, they had knocked off one regime, murdered the president, Tarak, and installed their own boy, Babrak, and later another puppet, Hafizullah Amin, soon to be castrated and hung from a lamp-post.] I don't have as much respect for the intelligence of the Yanks as you may have, since I don't believe that they could foresee twenty or thirty years down the track, that some of the rebels would turn into al Qa'ida. Who did, back then ? Nobody.

And I fully agree that, in relation to the Russians in particular,

"It would of been better if they never went in there stirring up trouble in the first place."

Hindsight is a wonderful teacher, isn't it ? Pity about foresight.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe & AC, the whole thing is a total mess.
I am coming to the conclusion that as all the young men in moslem
countries would prefer to go to Europe instead of doing something
about the mess in their homelands, perhaps we should isolate the
Middle East. Send all the young men back from Europe telling them to
fix their own problems and stop relying on the west to do it for them.

It will be tough on the women & children but if their own menfolk
won't do it why should we ?

I watched a good documentary a few weeks back about the soldiers fighting for Assad, typical though, I couldn't find it.

There was one soldier who's father and brother had been shot, wounded and run over by tanks by terrorists (Al-Nursa I think it was).
After wounding and capturing the pair, they forced the father to watch as they ran over his wounded son with a tank, and then they ran over him as well.
The remaining son, fighting for Assad was given info of where the bodies were to be found.
This guy has a wife and kids at home and goes out fighting for Assad and his country knowing full well if he's captured alive they will behead him.

No matter which side of the argument you're on, you have to respect people who stay and fight in defense of their country.
Surely it would be just as easy to run away to Europe than to stay.

Tough on the women?
http://youtu.be/DzI-2X7IFec

Islamic State attacks Yemen, when will you see they are a Western tool?

A skeleton key tool to start a conflict anywhere anytime and justify foreign invasions for regime change?

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/12/06/18/08/yemen-s-aden-governor-killed-in-attack

ARjay is not alone !

Hi AC,

How on earth do you join those dots ? Of all current trouble spots, I think Yemen would be one that the Yanks would steer well clear of. It's always been one of those places where many forces are at each others' throats at once. I recall after the monarchy was overthrown in 1962, a long civil war ensued between the republicans and the Mutawakalites. Then the two pseudo-leftist governments of North and South Yemen fought a civil war, probably with the Mutawakalites on the sidelines.

Now something similar is going on, with both ISIS and al Qa'ida involved as well, and the Houthi (Shi'ite) rebels from the north heavily involved.

Two-sided fight: pick a side and think about getting involved. Five-sided fight: stay the hell out.

So it's yet another surrogate war between the Saudis and Iran, another war that the Yanks wouldn't want to touch with a barge-pole.

If you need a conspiracy theory, why not try to find some link back to the Swedes ? Clever b@stards, the Swedes: who would think that they started this whole Yemen thing, way back in the late fifties ?

Evidence ? A secret meeting between the Saab and Bofors people and leftist groups, to employ Swedish 'advisers' in the overthrow of the king, a close ally of the Saudi king.

Which I just made up. I could invent a URL too, a link to grainy photos, if you want.

Cheers,

Joe