Thread: What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.



As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.


This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat" Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.



Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.

As I have been saying in previous posts, its ohblahblahblah and hitlerly that bear a heavy responsibility for prolonging the bloodbath in syria; a taste of what is to come if she becomes president.

Originally Posted by longway

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.



As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.


This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat" Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.



Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.

As I have been saying in previous posts, its ohblahblahblah and hitlerly that bear a heavy responsibility for prolonging the bloodbath in syria; a taste of what is to come if she becomes president.

That's just bullshit; when the UN were pressing for a resolution it was veto'd by China and Russia.

And Israel were perfectly happy with Assad because he made it abundantly clear he would make no attempt at retaking the land Israel stole in the Golan.

Who writes all this shit? They should work in advertising.

^ Harry I don't what planet you come from, but please stop blathering nonsense in this thread, it is painfully clear you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

This is the guy who wrote it, in the huffington post no less.

Jeffrey Sachs


RSS Feed



GET UPDATES FROM Jeffrey Sachs


Like

1.1k







Jeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned professor of economics, leader in sustainable development, senior UN advisor, bestselling author, and syndicated columnist whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 100 countries. He has twice been named among Time Magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders. He was called by the New York Times, “probably the most important economist in the world,” and by Time Magazine “the world’s best known economist.” A recent survey by The Economist Magazine ranked Professor Sachs as among the world’s three most influential living economists of the past decade.

Professor Sachs serves as the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the Millennium Development Goals, having held the same position under former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He is Director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He is co-founder and Chief Strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, and is director of the Millennium Villages Project. Sachs is also one of the Secretary-General’s MDG Advocates, and a Commissioner of the ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Development. He has authored three New York Times bestsellers in the past seven years: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011). ). His most recent book is To Move the World: JFK’s Quest for Peace (2013).

Professor Sachs is widely considered to be one of the world’s leading experts on economic development and the fight against poverty. His work on ending poverty, promoting economic growth, fighting hunger and disease, and promoting sustainable environmental practices, has taken him to more than 125 countries with more than 90 percent of the world’s population. For more than a quarter century he has advised dozens of heads of state and governments on economic strategy, in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

Sachs is the recipient of many awards and honors, including membership in the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Harvard Society of Fellows, and the Fellows of the World Econometric Society. He has received more than 20 honorary degrees, and many awards and honors around the world. Professor Sachs is also a frequent contributor to major publications such as the Financial Times of London, the International Herald Tribune, Scientific American, and Time magazine.

Prior to joining Columbia, Sachs spent over twenty years at Harvard University, most recently as Director of the Center for International Development and the Galen L. Stone Professor of International Trade. A native of Detroit, Michigan, Sachs received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees at Harvard.
Show full bio

Originally Posted by longway

^ Harry I don't what planet you come from, but please stop blathering nonsense in this thread, it is painfully clear you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

Wrong. It's painfully clear that he has an agenda in writing this article.

I would suggest you look up UN Resolutions 2011/612, 2012/77 and 2012/538, all of which were designed to force Assad to stop bombing his own people, and all of which were veto'd (only) by Russia and China.

You're the idiot for not bothering to check the facts as usual.

^ Harry I see right through you. I know you know nothing; its been obvious to me for a long time.

None of these resolutions have anything to do with a ceasefire brokered by Kofi Annan (and the author of the article should know as he worked for him), these resolutions are sponsored by the league of arab nations who are sunni arabs and are just them playing the usual political games.

This is what he is referring to

http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/in...rian-refugees/

It is therefore essential that any settlement provides for clear and irreversible steps in transition according to a fixed time frame. The key steps in any transition include: – The establishment of a Transitional Government of National Unity which can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place

Assad and Russia were both ready to negotiate at that point; and assad had agreed the national unity government in principle.

Originally Posted by longway

^ Harry I see right through you. I know you know nothing; its been obvious to me for a long time.

None of these resolutions have anything to do with a ceasefire brokered by Kofi Annan (and the author of the article should know as he worked for him), these resolutions are sponsored by the league of arab nations who are sunni arabs and are just them playing the usual political games.

This is what he is referring to

Kofi Annan calls for Syria national unity government; UN plans for 200,000 refugees | The Back Channel

It is therefore essential that any settlement provides for clear and irreversible steps in transition according to a fixed time frame. The key steps in any transition include: – The establishment of a Transitional Government of National Unity which can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place

Assad and Russia were both ready to negotiate at that point; and assad had agreed the national unity government in principle.

You naturally are too stupid to realise that, despite the fact that Russia wants to keep Assad in power, and he naturally wants to stay in power too, it was already clear by that point that the Syrian people would not accept him remaining in power.

Russia, along with Iran, essentially continued arming him, and Russia blocked the resolution that would have sent him to the ICJ where he, and certain Sunni militia leaders, belong.

The author clearly does not like these simple truths.

He even went so far as to say "The way to end the bloodletting is to staunch the flow of weapons into Syria from outside powers". Well who veto'd the fucking resolution to do exactly that, dumbass?

(And frankly, given that his expertise is supposed to be in Economics, if he's had a great voice in global economic development in the last few years he's done a fucking shit job of it!).

My guess is he was probably an "adviser" to Assad and Putin, I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the payroll: There is not a single word of condemnation of Assad or Putin's genocidal actions in the entire article.

It seems I am not alone in my opinions of this narcissist.

Certain of Sachs’ critics within the dev biz dismiss him as “one of the world’s most gifted self-publicists” flogging “superficially attractive but deeply flawed ideas,” as former World Bank official David Ellerman puts it. He says that Sachs’ prescriptions rely on top-down, neocolonial, interventionist solutions that have failed in the past.

Meanwhile, Naomi Klein, an anti[at]globalization writer and activist, calls Sachs “Doctor Shock.” She accuses him of having a dark past in which he prescribed not “moral medicine” but “shock therapy” economics for populations that were already too stunned to resist.

Other critics blame him and his whiz-kid colleagues—the so-called Harvard boys, including Obama’s economics guru Lawrence Summers—for missing a historic opportunity more than a decade ago in post-Soviet Russia. The disastrous attempt to turn a titanic collectivist economy into a capitalist democracy virtually overnight—an attempt that “privatized” the Russian economy into poverty, oligarchy, and gangsterism in the ’90s—gave capitalist democracy a bad name and paved the way for Putinism and renewed political and even military hostility, as evidenced by the invasion of Georgia. Will Sachs be remembered for saving the world in Africa or setting it on the path to destruction in Russia?

I don't want to name drop or anything but literally seconds ago I just got an email from Ban Ki Moon.

Apparently he has millions of dollars and he wants my help getting it moved.

Perfect timing!

Originally Posted by longway

Harry I don't what planet you come from

Planet Koch

Originally Posted by longway

please stop blathering nonsense in this thread

Good luck with that one mate, Harry Half-Pint is "The thing that could't die"

Originally Posted by longway

it is painfully clear you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

Oh he knows what he's talking about because,

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's painfully clear that I have an agenda.

Originally Posted by longway

Harry I see right through you

So do most, because yet again,

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's painfully clear that I have an agenda

Originally Posted by Dapper

Originally Posted by longway

Harry I don't what planet you come from

Planet Koch

Originally Posted by longway

please stop blathering nonsense in this thread

Good luck with that one mate, Harry Half-Pint is "The thing that could't die"

Originally Posted by longway

it is painfully clear you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

Oh he knows what he's talking about because,

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's painfully clear that I have an agenda.

Originally Posted by longway

Harry I see right through you

So do most, because yet again,

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's painfully clear that I have an agenda

Stop embarrassing yourself, you pathetic little tefler.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by longway

^ Harry I see right through you. I know you know nothing; its been obvious to me for a long time.

None of these resolutions have anything to do with a ceasefire brokered by Kofi Annan (and the author of the article should know as he worked for him), these resolutions are sponsored by the league of arab nations who are sunni arabs and are just them playing the usual political games.

This is what he is referring to

Kofi Annan calls for Syria national unity government; UN plans for 200,000 refugees | The Back Channel

It is therefore essential that any settlement provides for clear and irreversible steps in transition according to a fixed time frame. The key steps in any transition include: – The establishment of a Transitional Government of National Unity which can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place

Assad and Russia were both ready to negotiate at that point; and assad had agreed the national unity government in principle.

You naturally are too stupid to realise that, despite the fact that Russia wants to keep Assad in power, and he naturally wants to stay in power too, it was already clear by that point that the Syrian people would not accept him remaining in power.

Russia, along with Iran, essentially continued arming him, and Russia blocked the resolution that would have sent him to the ICJ where he, and certain Sunni militia leaders, belong.

The author clearly does not like these simple truths.

He even went so far as to say "The way to end the bloodletting is to staunch the flow of weapons into Syria from outside powers". Well who veto'd the fucking resolution to do exactly that, dumbass?

(And frankly, given that his expertise is supposed to be in Economics, if he's had a great voice in global economic development in the last few years he's done a fucking shit job of it!).

My guess is he was probably an "adviser" to Assad and Putin, I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the payroll: There is not a single word of condemnation of Assad or Putin's genocidal actions in the entire article.

This is largely incoherent babbling. Its telling you initially referred to some irrelevant UN resolutions, and are now changing to a new tack to create more obfuscations. Its just you spinning bs like you normally do.

He is not denying that Iran and Russia are arming assad, in fact he is pointing out that this is a proxy war between sunni arabs, israel and a shia alliance led by iran, with russia playing a supporting role.

Everything he says fits well with what is going on in the region, the usa arming islamists and sponsoring a regime chamge through tyhe so called 'arab spring', and ignoring isis and the arab states funding sunni insurgencies in syria and turkey allowing supplies to flow to isis.

Here is another excerpt from the article

Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency.



The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves radical jihadists with their own agendas.


The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.

The libyan fiasco was another regime change attempt that clinton was involved with.

Whether the syrian people would accept assad or not is moot, as the peace plan was scuppered deliberately by clinton, so we will never know.

Originally Posted by longway

This is largely incoherent babbling.

I know it is, so why post it?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Stop embarrassing yourself, you pathetic little tefler.

Keep exposing what a past-your-sell-by-date, whisker away from a zimmer frame, ultimate loser in life you are harry halfpint

Originally Posted by Dapper

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Stop embarrassing yourself, you pathetic little tefler.

Keep exposing what a past-your-sell-by-date, whisker away from a zimmer frame, ultimate loser in life you are harry halfpint

Fuck me, is everyone except me pissed tonight?

Managed to finish your second Leo did you?

I'm on six, when you gonna finish that half-pint old man?

Originally Posted by Dapper

I'm on six, when you gonna finish that half-pint old man?

I'm not drinking tonight. But then again I don't have a miserable tefler life to try and hide from.

No, that's right, you have to hide from being the human equivalent of a slug/bottom feeder.

Booze won't wash that away will it grandpa

seven
(burp)

Assads old man was friends with USSR leaders as far back as Kruschev....
and Russia has always had a Port there for its Navy to dock in.
Strategic importance for Putin.

Thought i'd throw that in for what its worth or not ....

Originally Posted by longway

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.



As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.


This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat" Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.



Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.

As I have been saying in previous posts, its ohblahblahblah and hitlerly that bear a heavy responsibility for prolonging the bloodbath in syria; a taste of what is to come if she becomes president.

I have put a rather scathing article about her activity's by Julian Assange in the Democratic thread in Speakers corner .

Originally Posted by billy the kid

Assads old man was friends with USSR leaders as far back as Kruschev....
and Russia has always had a Port there for its Navy to dock in.
Strategic importance for Putin.

Thought i'd throw that in for what its worth or not ....

I'm still waiting for one of the nutjobs to post that there are 350,000 Saudi troops massing on the border ready to invade and start WWIII.

I shit you not, it's out there.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

despite the fact that Russia wants to keep Assad in power, and he naturally wants to stay in power too, it was already clear by that point that the Syrian people would not accept him remaining in power.

Russia has said many times it is not about the man, Assad, it is about the position. The leader of the Syrian people. The Syrians, alone, should be the deciders of that. Not the whim of, here today gone tomorrow foreign politicians, who may have very different agendas of their own.

Assad, himself, has many times said, that if the people of Syria no longer want him as the Syrian leader, he is ready to stand down. He is not willing to stand down at the whim of, here today gone tomorrow foreign politicians, who may have very different agendas of their own.

The Syrian electorate have continued to democratically vote for Assad to remain in power. One could argue that Syrian Democracy differs from other countries versions. That maybe a good or a bad thing, depending on which countries Democracy one is comparing it with. Again the democratic system is open to modification via their constitution, as many countries constitution is "amendable". Again determined by Syrians, not at the whim of, here today gone tomorrow, foreign politicians who may have very different agendas of their own.

This is a sovereign country, they have had for many years an accepted constitution, they had and have now, an electorate intelligent to decide if and who to vote for. This is not some fly blown country but one where the inhabitants are, with assistance from treaty members, able to resist.

NATO, which is a subjugated force dominated militarily and financially by a failing empire, cannot just lie and bomb their way this time.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

despite the fact that Russia wants to keep Assad in power, and he naturally wants to stay in power too, it was already clear by that point that the Syrian people would not accept him remaining in power.

Russia has said many times it is not about the man, Assad, it is about the position. The leader of the Syrian people. The Syrians, alone, should be the deciders of that. Not the whim of, here today gone tomorrow foreign politicians, who may have very different agendas of their own.

Assad, himself, has many times said, that if the people of Syria no longer want him as the Syrian leader, he is ready to stand down. He is not willing to stand down at the whim of, here today gone tomorrow foreign politicians, who may have very different agendas of their own.

You believe any old shit don't you?

He would no more stand down than he would allow a free and fair election that would have him out on his arse in second.

You are so fucking gullible.

But they're politicians Harry!