ISIS cannot be defeated without toppling Assad?!?

Flipped through TV and came across CNN and thats what they are saying.
What is the White House smoking? How's toppling Assad gonna help with defeating ISIS? How is creating another vacuum in ME gonna do anything but help ISIS.

My god I want what they are huffing.

 

Just a different version of WMDs in Iraq to further some agenda. Feed the American voter some story and let their stupidity get them behind another useless war effort.

 

You mean the stockpiles, some 5000 plus munitions of chemical agents recently verified as being found in post Hussein Iraq?

 

Guess they should have done this a decade ago...

 

I prefer the pick.

 

....and? When Saddam used WMDs on Kurds in the 80s US did nothing. Gee they went in there in 91 and yet Saddam was left in power and nobody said a word about WMD then. Only when Saddam messed with Kuwait oil did US stomp on him.

Why the sudden urgency all of a sudden? Oh that's right, he threatened the petro dollar by allowing Iraq to sell oil for gold, bypassing the need for US currency. Can't have that.

 

Yeah, that's it.

 

Excellent retort. Very thought provoking. :down:

 

Your recollection of why the coalition forces went in 1991 is overly simplified, and it wasn't just the US.

1) UN Resolution
2) Coalition forces pushed Iraqi troops back, per the actual direction of the resolution.
3) The US played a large part in that, but it wasn't just us.

For further reading, look at section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War for more.

 

To add to Jed's response, the reason the UN enforced this after the 1991 war is that it was a part of the peace agreement that Iraq signed to end the war;

Resolution 687 (1991)
Paragraph C, Item 8
"8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;"

 

Ofcourse it's oversimplified. Getting a coalition together is nothing more than a way to rubber stamp "worlds approval" on an endeavour.

Still doesn't answer the fact that:

a. US as well as the coalition knew of WMDs then and nothing was said about it, nor was it used as a driving force. Saddam had SCUDSs back then as well.
b. Saddam was left in power then.

WMDs were used as an excuse, just like US always has to have a string to pull with the masses when they want publics approval.

US and UN have let some major human massacres gone unanswered for me to be "US, World cops, fuck ya!"

 

Excuse - nice. Don't let agenda challenge your intellect.

Hey, you got to use "petro dollars" again.

 

We ain't found shit!

 

I wasn't saying they were or were not there when we invaded, I have no idea. Just pointing out that we drum up some reason to further an agenda. ISIS is in the news now and Americans are concerned about it so lets use that as an excuse to get rid of Assad. We've done such a good job so far of implementing our democracy in the ME so lets try it again. The Iraquies and Afghans are so much better off now.

 

If I could share one word with you, it would be: Turkey!

You cannot come or draw to conclusion about the Kurds/Iran in the 1980's or today without including Turkey.

You may find that it trumps your "petro dollar" theory.

 

Well, when you make it about US dollars and ignore the fact he was printing millions in counterfeit Dollars it is clear you weren't paying attention. Figured it was easier to agree with you than try and reason.

 

Removing Assad now wouldn't make sense. Assad, with his connections to Russia, for the moment, represents an additional front against ISIS, so from a military perspective I don't know that his removal would be a good thing against ISIS. I'm sure there are others on this board that know more about Syria's capabilities than I do.

Make no mistake, that broadcast is right, that the US eventually would want Assad out, as having Russia that close is viewed as dangerous to our worldview. But using ISIS as a lever to get him out doesn't make sense at this time.

ISIS is way more complex that simply "petro-dollars" as one of the reasons to kill 'em.

ISIS are Sunni based as are the area where they are getting their support within Iraq and Syria (although not from Assad). Their stated goal is a Caliphate, presumably with a Sunni based interpretation of Isalm.

That represents some pretty awful things to other Muslims that believe in the Shia version of things and one of the reasons you are now seeing the Shiite Militias entering the fight against ISIS in conjunction with, or maybe due to lack of ability of, the Iraqi military. Iran, a mostly Shiite country, wants ISIS gone and are contributing against ISIS. (It's a weird world when the US and Iran agree).

Turkey, Kurds/Kurdistan, and Iraqi/Turkish Christians also are in this mix. While the Kurds are Muslim, they are Kurds first. The Kurds and Turks don't want ISIS, but the Turks also refuse to allow the Kurds to have their own territory/country. That's a separate issue, with ISIS temporarily putting the lid on those passions.