A simple game of chess?

[Ogbin]

I believe that if the West didn't also have ulterior motives, that the West would be doing much more about ISIS. This has become a highly intense game of Chess with multiple nations. I would like to ask a question. What is the position of check mate trying to be achieved by each of the nations involved?

[kartikg]

Well all of them want access to oil . And they will lie cheat and steal to get it.

[Occult1]

I do think that the rise of ISIL is an unfortunate consequence of the situation in Syria. The West wanted the fall of the Syrian regime and was backing a fraction of rebel, which they saw as 'moderate'. The problem is that some of Bashar's ennemies quickly seized the uprising as an opportunity to also plot his downfall and it became a game of 'funding and arming whoever can fight Bashar's army'. I believe the ISIL movement was fuelled by Turkey, Kuweit, Saudi Arabia, Quatar and that it unexpectedly grew into monster out of control so that they all pretty much tried to distance themselves from it. In their eagerness to see Bashar gone some realized too late what they had done. Arab Gulf leaders in the Middle-East are not too reliable allies and have their own agendas. Gulfs donnors have so much money I think they really gave ISIL the means to grow and capture new terrories, swallowing fractions of rebels.

I think this summarize the core of the problem:

“ISIS is part of the Sunni forces that are fighting Shia forces in this regional sectarian conflict. They are in an existential battle with both the (Iranian aligned) Maliki government and the Assad regime,” said Tabler. “The U.S. has made the case as strongly as they can to regional countries, including Kuwait. But ultimately when you take a hands off, leading from behind approach to things, people don’t take you seriously and they take matters into their own hands.”

[...]

''When confronted with the problem, Gulf leaders often justify allowing their Salafi constituents to fund Syrian extremist groups by pointing back to what they see as a failed U.S. policy in Syria and a loss of credibility after President Obama reneged on his pledge to strike Assad after the regime used chemical weapons.''

Source: http://www.thedailyb...nding-isis.html

So basically Sunnite Gulf Arab leaders wanted Assad gone, the US wouldn't do more therefore they tried to take the matter in their own hands. In my opinion, that and the failed US policy of arming rebel forces was a terrible fiasco.

As for Iran, they are involved in fighting ISIL in Iraq, much more then what is acknowledged in the news. One of their top general is actually leading Iraqi forces on the ground. They also back the Lebanese group Hezbollah to fight rebels both in Syria and Iraq. Since Iran is the bastion of Shiia muslims, they have an interest in destroying ISIL. They could be a reliable partner of the US in this fight but unfortunately they don't trust each other. Iran and Russia are stunch allies of the Syrian regime and they are convinced that the true purpose of all this is the removal of Bashar Al-Assad.

All in all I still think the big issue lies with Syria. If the US can find a way to collaborate with Bashar Al-Assar and coordinate the efforts against ISIL with his army as they do with Iraqi forces, it would the best solution one could hope for. The old saying the ennemy of my ennemy is my friend still holds true. Once ISIL has been degraded and defeated, we have to let the citizens of this country make their own choices and stop this foreign intervention. Bashar Al-Assad may be a dictator but I do believe the Syrian people would much better having him back than live under ISIL's extreme sharia rules or getting rid of them only to endure another civil war.

Edited November 11, 2014 by sam_comm

[+Hammerclaw]

The West is paying the price for demonizing Assad and meddling in Syrian internal affairs in the place. This "Arab Spring" nonsense was fomented by the U.S. State Department and Hillary Clinton who had the grandiose vision of bringing Western style democracy to the Oil Republics of North Africa and the Middle East. Well, Libya is in chaos, Tunis is shaky, Egypt is back where it started, and even more dictatorial. The piece de la resistance is Syria, peaceful and tranquil, until the U.S. diplomatic core started stirring up the resistance in Homs, angering the Assad regime with unapproved contacts with an outlawed movement. Promises of support that never came, red lines drawn in the sand by our timorous President that were erased and equivocated over when the time came to fullfill his promise, and what do we have? We have an even more ruthless version of the Taliban, composed largely of foreigners, tacitly supported by Erdogan of Turkey and his Islamist Party, parading about in comicbook costumes that look like they were designed by Frank Miller on a really bad day. Our governments in the West are responsible for this. Everybody brought popcorn and cheered the rebels on, but no one wanted to get their hands dirty. They sat idly by and allowed the revolution to be co-opted by ISIS, and here we are.

[Ogbin]

The West wanted the fall of the Syrian regime and was backing a fraction of rebel, which they saw as 'moderate'.

What is the reason for wanting the removal of Assad? We have to know that something worse will most likely replace him.

Bashar Al-Assad may be a dictator but I do believe the Syrian people would much better having him back than live under ISIL's extreme sharia rules or getting rid of them only to endure another civil war.

I have noticed in the last decade or so, that the West has been working hard to remove Muslim dictators. I wonder why this is. There has to be a hidden agenda of some kind. After every dictator that has fallen, chaos has ensued. I for one believe that the West not only knew that radical Islam was going become a problem when they pulled out of Iraq, they had planned for it. Assad is obviously next on the list to go, but there are a lot of factors involved with removing him from power. Radical Islam, in my opinion, is the way in to Syria for the west.

I just want to throw this out there.. Personly, I believe the toppling of all these dictatorships is to prepare for a one world government. It would be hard to have a one world government if there are those that don't want to be a part of the "one."

Snip*

Edited November 11, 2014 by Ogbin

[Mr.United_Nations]

Well all of them want access to oil . And they will lie cheat and steal to get it.

not oil, Syria does not have bucket loads left, i think its to do removing Iran's only real ally in the Middle East

[Occult1]

This "Arab Spring" nonsense was fomented by the U.S. State Department and Hillary Clinton who had the grandiose vision of bringing Western style democracy to the Oil Republics of North Africa and the Middle East.

I don't quite agree with that, I think the arab spring was a genuine wave of protest by people fed up of living under corrupt and authoritarianism rulers. A lot of young people where unemployed, these dictators had implemented a kleptocracy for the advantage of only certain classes of individuals. One reason that these protests became widespread is because of a wonderful invention: the internet. Organisers and activists were able to coordinate protests with the help of Twitter and Facebook, to the point that these regimes decided to shut down these websites in the hope of smothering the uprising.

I do believe that once the US pronounced that a dictator 'had to step down', pretty much all the European Union followed and there was not a lot of hope left for him. But not all resigned, Jordan, Oman, Barhain, Morocco, Saudi Arabia all managed to end up the protests by making economic concessions which can only be a good thing for the citizens of these countries. Hopefully these regimes understood the messages that was send to them by the population.

Edited November 11, 2014 by sam_comm

[Mr.United_Nations]

The West is paying the price for demonizing Assad and meddling in Syrian internal affairs in the place. This "Arab Spring" nonsense was fomented by the U.S. State Department and Hillary Clinton who had the grandiose vision of bringing Western style democracy to the Oil Republics of North Africa and the Middle East. Well, Libya is in chaos, Tunis is shaky, Egypt is back where it started, and even more dictatorial. The piece de la resistance is Syria, peaceful and tranquil, until the U.S. diplomatic core started stirring up the resistance in Homs, angering the Assad regime with unapproved contacts with an outlawed movement. Promises of support that never came, red lines drawn in the sand by our timorous President that were erased and equivocated over when the time came to fullfill his promise, and what do we have? We have an even more ruthless version of the Taliban, composed largely of foreigners, tacitly supported by Erdogan of Turkey and his Islamist Party, parading about in comicbook costumes that look like they were designed by Frank Miller on a really bad day. Our governments in the West are responsible for this. Everybody brought popcorn and cheered the rebels on, but no one wanted to get their hands dirty. They sat idly by and allowed the revolution to be co-opted by ISIS, and here we are.

I believe it was the Egyptian revolution which caused the protests in Syria and also online social media played a very huge part. I typed Syria on twitter and every few seconds there was like 90+ tweets.

ISIS formed under a different name and changed twice, they formed around 2000 or earlier

[Occult1]

What is the reason for wanting the removal of Assad? We have to know that something worse will most likely replace him.

My understanding is that Bashar Al-Assad didn't help the situation by responding to the protests with violent crackdowns. They were some alarming reports of Human rights violations by independant organizations and a lot of defections in his own army. He should have put forward his peace plan -an attempt to make meaningful concessions - much earlier instead of waiting that the conflict degenerate into a state of war. This would have probably ended the uprising, as it did in Jordan, Yemen, Morocco ect. He waited until 2013 right the middle of the civil war, to condede a referendum on the constitution and parliamentary elections. I do think these are pretty fair concessions but they came too late, Assad's ennemies (which happen to be his neighbors) were already plotting his downfall. The rebels were backed and had seized territories: they had no intention of stopping there.

All that gave minutions to the Occident, which has never been a friend of the Assad regime. They think that the Syrian people as well as themselves would benefit having a more friendly governement in place. But why should they decide for the Syrian people?

Edited November 11, 2014 by sam_comm

[kartikg]

USA funds rebel nobody bats an eye . Russia supports rebel everyone looses their mind:-$

[Ogbin]

As for Iran, they are involved in fighting ISIL in Iraq, much more then what is acknowledged in the news. One of their top general is actually leading Iraqi forces on the ground. They also back the Lebanese group Hezbollah to fight rebels both in Syria and Iraq. Since Iran is the bastion of Shiia muslims, they have an interest in destroying ISIL.

From what I understand, members of ISIS have stated that when their done with Syria and Iraq, Iran will be their next target. I am sure that Iran is quite intimidated by the idea of an invasion from ISIS. However, I believe that if ISIS does accomplish their goal of conquering Iraq and Syria that they will turn their aggression towards Israel instead of Iran. ISIS and Iran have one thing in common and that is they both want the destruction of Israel. ISIS has to know that if they went to war against Iran, that Iran would not hold anything back and would most likely win. This would of course not be in the best interest of ISIS if they wish to come against Israel.

[Occult1]

From what I understand, members of ISIS have stated that when their done with Syria and Iraq, Iran will be their next target.

Actually it's not clear. They have stated that Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Lebanon or even Chechnya and Causasus in Russia could be a next target. (http://rt.com/news/1...-kadyrov-syria/)

I am sure that Iran is quite intimidated by the idea of an invasion from ISIS. However, I believe that if ISIS does accomplish their goal of conquering Iraq and Syria that they will turn their aggression towards Israel instead of Iran. ISIS and Iran have one thing in common and that is they both want the destruction of Israel. ISIS has to know that if they went to war against Iran, that Iran would not hold anything back and would most likely win. This would of course not be in the best interest of ISIS if they wish to come against Israel.

Iran will not allow ISIL to created a Sunni caliphate in Iraq and the Levant. The reason for this is that ISIL intend to purge the Middle-East of Shiia muslims, which they see as 'heretics'. At this point what Iran is doing is mostly undercover but if ever should ISIL be too close to their borders they will not hesitate to engage them directly.

Edited November 11, 2014 by sam_comm

[Ogbin]

Actually it's not clear. They have stated that Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Lebanon or even Chechnya and Causasus in Russia could be a next target.

If Saudi Arabia really is funding ISIS, then why would ISIS turn on them? I am little confused by the actions of turkey, but I don't see ISIS coming after them either. If Syria falls, then you can kiss Lebanon goodbye. Just like with Iran, it would be completely suicidal for ISIS to attack Russia, it would hinder the ultimate goal of ISIS(the destruction of Israel). The main goal of ISIS at this point I believe is to create their "Islamic State" and become a organized regional power.

Iran will not allow ISIL to created a Sunni caliphate in Iraq and the Levant. The reason for this is that ISIL intend to purge the Middle-East of Shiia muslims, which they see as 'heretics'. At this point what Iran is doing is mostly undercover but if ever should ISIL be too close to their borders they will not hesitate to engage them directly.

I don't see Iran stopping a Sunni caliphate if it were to accually happen. What I mean is, yes they do seem to be working behind the scenes and fighting against ISIS right now, but if ISIS doesn't directly pose a threat to Iran(like we see with Syria/Iraq), is Iran willing to go to war? Would it be in there best interest to do so if their main goal is to also bring about the destruction of Israel?

[Ogbin]

I wonder what Russia has to gain other than a foot hold in the Middle East by supporting Assad. What is Russia doing? Putin has to know that Assad is going to lose and Syria will fall.

[acidhead]

I believe that if the West didn't also have ulterior motives, that the West would be doing much more about ISIS. This has become a highly intense game of Chess with multiple nations. I would like to ask a question. What is the position of check mate trying to be achieved by each of the nations involved?

A New World Order

[acidhead]

"It's a private club and you aren't invited. " -GC

[SolarPlexus]

US and its allies are playing a well known game ..... Create a problem, then offer a solution. Bor-ing

[+and-then]

US and its allies are playing a well known game ..... Create a problem, then offer a solution. Bor-ing

Actually it can be quite exciting for brief periods of time But I don't understand why everyone seems so surprised or even upset by power players acting like power players. It has always been so. Doesn't make it right or moral, mind you, but it is the way of the world.

[Occult1]

US and its allies are playing a well known game ..... Create a problem, then offer a solution. Bor-ing

You might be right but the Prime Minister of Canada, one of US's closest ally just stated recently that Canada doesn't support a war against the Syrian regime and will therefore not participate in any such military actions.

“The government of Canada is prepared to engage in actions against ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) in Syria, but only as long as those are not interpreted as war against the government of Syria,” Harper said at a joint news conference with Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand, where the Canadian leader repeated his demand that Assad resign.

“Because whatever objections the government of Canada has against the government of Syria, we are not interested in any war with any government in the region,” he said. “Our only military fight is with ISIL.”

Source: http://o.canada.com/...-new-zealand-pm

Interesting. It seems like a much more reasonable position to me than what the West was advocating for in the last 2 years. We shall see how Australia or Britain will move their pieces but it may well be that if the US still intend to remove the Syrian regime by force, they will find themselves alone in this.

Edited November 15, 2014 by sam_comm

[+Hammerclaw]

A New World Order

Oh bother! Not another one of those!

[SolarPlexus]

nevermind

Edited November 15, 2014 by SolarPlexus

[Ogbin]

If Saudi Arabia really is funding ISIS, then why would ISIS turn on them?

I take this ignorant statement back. It would not suprise me at all to see Saudi Arabia fall to ISIS.