Iran’s Agony in Syria

janklow
janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
if accurate, interesting...

Iran’s Agony in Syria
Captured document reveals infighting, manpower shortage
Recent attacks and counter-attacks in the long-running Syrian civil war have claimed the lives of several top fighters and commanders on the side of the government regime—at least two of them Iranians.

And the death of one Iranian officer in particular has resulted in a major intelligence coup for rebel forces. They found among the officer’s possessions notes detailing the regime’s command and manpower problems.
Eskandari. Photo via the author

Gen. Abdullah Eskandari was the former head of veterans’ and martyrs’ affairs in city of Shiraz in Iran. He was apparently part of Tehran’s secretive force fighting in Syria on behalf of embattled president Bashar Al Assad.

Some time in late May, a sniper reportedly shot and killed Eskandari near Damascus. Rebels decapitated the general’s body and put his head on a spike in order to pose with it in photos.

Not long after, the opposition published the contents of a notepad they claimed they found in Eskandari’s kit. The pad doesn’t mention that its contents are classified, nor does it carry an official seal. However unofficial, the notes seem to confirm the infighting and manpower shortages the observers have long suspected of plaguing the Syrian regime and its Iranian backers.

The first page of the notepad describes the four major Syrian intelligence—Political Intelligence, Military Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence and Government Intelligence. All four are independent … and all four report directly to Al Assad. According to Eskandari’s notes, competition is fierce between the agencies.

The pad’s second page pays special attention to Hama province in north-central Syria. It states that 13,000 rebels are active in the five districts. The regime can muster only a few thousand paramilitary soldiers and a small army contingent to contest the province. The paramilitary National Defense Force in Hama includes five brigades of 1,000 men each, according to the notes.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps directly organized one of the brigades, Eskandari reveals. “For 10 months after we started here, we didn’t have any real power, but now they [the Syrian regime forces] are paying attention to us,” the general writes.

The header on the third page reads, “Syrian army dissipation and disintegration!” The general recommends that paramilitaries should replace the regime’s 33rd Infantry Division in manning checkpoints—and that the 87th and 35th Divisions have left Dara’a, near the border with Jordan.
Eskandari’s notepad. Photo via the author

Manpower is so short that Eskandari recommends reducing the number of fighters at each regime checkpoint. In particular, the general’s notes describe loyalist forces in Dara’a as fragile. He suggests that regime troops should go on the offensive rather than remaining in static positions, where rebels can easily target them. “In this state, as time passes the defenders would be weakened—and no army can endure such a situation,” Eskandari warns.

The fourth and last page suggests several measures for defeating the rebels. It recommends line-breaker units to ? open opposition defenses. These line-breakers should come from Iran, Eskandari advises. After the line-breakers clear a rebel area, Syrian troops could come in behind them and set up new positions.

The general’s last and most interesting recommendation is how to counter the rebels’ anti-tank guided missiles. The briefing recommends fast-moving troops sweep ahead of the armored vehicles to suppress missile teams.

This tactic has worked before. During the Iranian-led regime offensive in the Qalamun Mountains norther of Damascus, Hezbollah formed pioneer groups riding on motorcycles and lightly armored all-terrain vehicles. The pioneers advanced under artillery and tank fire, which suppressed rebel snipers and machine guns.

The pioneers got close to rebel lines … and stayed there. Their fire kept the rebel missile teams from moving into positions—and that allowed Syrian tanks to safely advance. The regime succeeded in pushing the rebels out of the mountains.

But the same tactic didn’t work in Dara’a. The pioneers—apparently Syrians this time—weren’t able to sustain close combat and often retreated before heavy armor could arrive. The open terrain didn’t help, as it exposed the pioneers and the tanks to heavy fire. Loyalist forces lost at least 15 armored fighting vehicles to rebels during the recent operation in Dara’a.

Eskandari’s notes reveal significant weaknesses inside the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah alliance. Despite Iranian officials having bragged about forming 37 brigades to aid the Syrian regime, manpower remains a big problem. Damascus’ forces are unreliable. And there aren’t enough Iranian and Hezbollah troops to prop up the Syrians.

At least not forever.
i imagine decapitated generals don't engender a lot of love for the rebels types with the Iranians.
«13

Comments

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wow interesting.....if Iran is this weak fighting Syrian rebels, many of whom are allies with ISIS, then I can see that Iran would struggle just as much against ISIS in Iraq. ISIS is only getting more power in Syria and Iraq and with more rebel groups allying themselves with them, it looks like Syria is better off getting more help from Russia

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjvxHCY26rk&feature=player_detailpage

    ISIS parading tanks and SCUD missiles in the streets of Syria lol.....I wonder how much longer till Assad falls. Especially since America also wants Assad taken down (America allying with ISIS, funny stuff)
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.

    LOL you can't be serious....why in the hell would that be a good idea
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.

    LOL you can't be serious....why in the hell would that be a good idea

    because if we don't there is going to be a larger war sooner or later if we don't do something in iraq we should at least do something in syria, so that we can contain isis someplace, either in iraq or syria. i keep trying to tell you their is no way around the coming fight it has to be done and we are the only people with the ? and power to do it.
  • cainvelasquez
    cainvelasquez Members Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Iran is zero threat to the west. I would rather support Assad than ISIS and islamists.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.

    LOL you can't be serious....why in the hell would that be a good idea

    because if we don't there is going to be a larger war sooner or later if we don't do something in iraq we should at least do something in syria, so that we can contain isis someplace, either in iraq or syria. i keep trying to tell you their is no way around the coming fight it has to be done and we are the only people with the ? and power to do it.

    If you're that afraid of Islamists, then you should be trying to protect Assad! He's the one fighting the Islamists, including ISIS. Why invade Syria when Assad still has most of the control there and he's pretty much on your side??
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.

    LOL you can't be serious....why in the hell would that be a good idea

    because if we don't there is going to be a larger war sooner or later if we don't do something in iraq we should at least do something in syria, so that we can contain isis someplace, either in iraq or syria. i keep trying to tell you their is no way around the coming fight it has to be done and we are the only people with the ? and power to do it.

    If you're that afraid of Islamists, then you should be trying to protect Assad! He's the one fighting the Islamists, including ISIS. Why invade Syria when Assad still has most of the control there and he's pretty much on your side??

    making friends with these people is a mistake that must not be repeated both sides should be taken down and syria put under united states military governorship like japan was after ww2. if we allow one side to ? the other then invade so after we can rid ourselves of both sides before either solidifies their power.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.

    LOL you can't be serious....why in the hell would that be a good idea

    because if we don't there is going to be a larger war sooner or later if we don't do something in iraq we should at least do something in syria, so that we can contain isis someplace, either in iraq or syria. i keep trying to tell you their is no way around the coming fight it has to be done and we are the only people with the ? and power to do it.

    If you're that afraid of Islamists, then you should be trying to protect Assad! He's the one fighting the Islamists, including ISIS. Why invade Syria when Assad still has most of the control there and he's pretty much on your side??

    making friends with these people is a mistake that must not be repeated both sides should be taken down and syria put under united states military governorship like japan was after ww2. if we allow one side to ? the other then invade so after we can rid ourselves of both sides before either solidifies their power.

    It's not that simple though, your strategy is the same horrible mistake we made in Iraq. We got rid of an established govt in Saddam Hussein and tried to start from scratch, America isn't good at nation building lol, look at Afghanistan as another example.

    Taking out ISIS AND ASSAD? You know how ? hard that's gonna be? America knows damn well that ISIS is imbedded with the Syrian population at this point (many of them at least), we would be fighting 3 wars in your scenario, the people of Syria, ISIS and Assad not a good strategy at all. American cities are already doing budget cuts due to severe debt, and you want America to take on more of it?? We're better off working with Assad, at least he isn't a radical like ISIS. And if the people wana be ruled by ISIS, fine, but we can't fight 3 wars in Syria alone man it would be a disaster. We'd need to use nuclear weapons for your strategy.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.

    LOL you can't be serious....why in the hell would that be a good idea

    because if we don't there is going to be a larger war sooner or later if we don't do something in iraq we should at least do something in syria, so that we can contain isis someplace, either in iraq or syria. i keep trying to tell you their is no way around the coming fight it has to be done and we are the only people with the ? and power to do it.

    If you're that afraid of Islamists, then you should be trying to protect Assad! He's the one fighting the Islamists, including ISIS. Why invade Syria when Assad still has most of the control there and he's pretty much on your side??

    making friends with these people is a mistake that must not be repeated both sides should be taken down and syria put under united states military governorship like japan was after ww2. if we allow one side to ? the other then invade so after we can rid ourselves of both sides before either solidifies their power.

    It's not that simple though, your strategy is the same horrible mistake we made in Iraq. We got rid of an established govt in Saddam Hussein and tried to start from scratch, America isn't good at nation building lol, look at Afghanistan as another example.

    Taking out ISIS AND ASSAD? You know how ? hard that's gonna be? America knows damn well that ISIS is imbedded with the Syrian population at this point (many of them at least), we would be fighting 3 wars in your scenario, the people of Syria, ISIS and Assad not a good strategy at all. American cities are already doing budget cuts due to severe debt, and you want America to take on more of it?? We're better off working with Assad, at least he isn't a radical like ISIS. And if the people wana be ruled by ISIS, fine, but we can't fight 3 wars in Syria alone man it would be a disaster. We'd need to use nuclear weapons for your strategy.

    No it's not the same. what we did in iraq was try to teach them democracy i don't want to do that. i want to put them directly under our rulership. taking out either side will be easier once one side is all but gone after fighting years of a civil war.

    what you described is exactly not want i want.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    ISIS parading tanks and SCUD missiles in the streets of Syria lol...
    eh, it's still a lot easier to parade ? around than it is to DO SOMETHING with it

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.

    LOL you can't be serious....why in the hell would that be a good idea

    because if we don't there is going to be a larger war sooner or later if we don't do something in iraq we should at least do something in syria, so that we can contain isis someplace, either in iraq or syria. i keep trying to tell you their is no way around the coming fight it has to be done and we are the only people with the ? and power to do it.

    If you're that afraid of Islamists, then you should be trying to protect Assad! He's the one fighting the Islamists, including ISIS. Why invade Syria when Assad still has most of the control there and he's pretty much on your side??

    making friends with these people is a mistake that must not be repeated both sides should be taken down and syria put under united states military governorship like japan was after ww2. if we allow one side to ? the other then invade so after we can rid ourselves of both sides before either solidifies their power.

    It's not that simple though, your strategy is the same horrible mistake we made in Iraq. We got rid of an established govt in Saddam Hussein and tried to start from scratch, America isn't good at nation building lol, look at Afghanistan as another example.

    Taking out ISIS AND ASSAD? You know how ? hard that's gonna be? America knows damn well that ISIS is imbedded with the Syrian population at this point (many of them at least), we would be fighting 3 wars in your scenario, the people of Syria, ISIS and Assad not a good strategy at all. American cities are already doing budget cuts due to severe debt, and you want America to take on more of it?? We're better off working with Assad, at least he isn't a radical like ISIS. And if the people wana be ruled by ISIS, fine, but we can't fight 3 wars in Syria alone man it would be a disaster. We'd need to use nuclear weapons for your strategy.

    No it's not the same. what we did in iraq was try to teach them democracy i don't want to do that. i want to put them directly under our rulership. taking out either side will be easier once one side is all but gone after fighting years of a civil war.

    what you described is exactly not want i want.

    Keeping Syria under a direct rulership requires a puppet because no Syrian would accept an American as the ruler there, and who would be the puppet? Even if one side takes out the other and America goes after the winner, it's still gonna be a difficult plan because America sucks at fighting guerilla warfare. America under your strategy also would have to occupy Syria for a long time because we all know America is considered the Great Satan in the Middle East (For good reason). People from all over the Muslim world would be thrilled to get the chance to ? and behead American soldiers first chance they get.

    Your strategy would also make America hated even more in the Middle East and ? help us if bombs ? the majority Sunni populations in Syria, hell would break lose because most of the Arab world is Sunni. America is better off working with Assad, I still don't know why Obama has so much beef with him.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    janklow wrote: »
    ISIS parading tanks and SCUD missiles in the streets of Syria lol...
    eh, it's still a lot easier to parade ? around than it is to DO SOMETHING with it

    ISIS is already using those tanks in Syria AND Iraq. They're occupying Syrian towns and Iraqi cities with those tanks. So yeah they already are doing something with it.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.

    LOL you can't be serious....why in the hell would that be a good idea

    because if we don't there is going to be a larger war sooner or later if we don't do something in iraq we should at least do something in syria, so that we can contain isis someplace, either in iraq or syria. i keep trying to tell you their is no way around the coming fight it has to be done and we are the only people with the ? and power to do it.

    If you're that afraid of Islamists, then you should be trying to protect Assad! He's the one fighting the Islamists, including ISIS. Why invade Syria when Assad still has most of the control there and he's pretty much on your side??

    making friends with these people is a mistake that must not be repeated both sides should be taken down and syria put under united states military governorship like japan was after ww2. if we allow one side to ? the other then invade so after we can rid ourselves of both sides before either solidifies their power.

    It's not that simple though, your strategy is the same horrible mistake we made in Iraq. We got rid of an established govt in Saddam Hussein and tried to start from scratch, America isn't good at nation building lol, look at Afghanistan as another example.

    Taking out ISIS AND ASSAD? You know how ? hard that's gonna be? America knows damn well that ISIS is imbedded with the Syrian population at this point (many of them at least), we would be fighting 3 wars in your scenario, the people of Syria, ISIS and Assad not a good strategy at all. American cities are already doing budget cuts due to severe debt, and you want America to take on more of it?? We're better off working with Assad, at least he isn't a radical like ISIS. And if the people wana be ruled by ISIS, fine, but we can't fight 3 wars in Syria alone man it would be a disaster. We'd need to use nuclear weapons for your strategy.

    No it's not the same. what we did in iraq was try to teach them democracy i don't want to do that. i want to put them directly under our rulership. taking out either side will be easier once one side is all but gone after fighting years of a civil war.

    what you described is exactly not want i want.

    Keeping Syria under a direct rulership requires a puppet because no Syrian would accept an American as the ruler there, and who would be the puppet? Even if one side takes out the other and America goes after the winner, it's still gonna be a difficult plan because America sucks at fighting guerilla warfare. America under your strategy also would have to occupy Syria for a long time because we all know America is considered the Great Satan in the Middle East (For good reason). People from all over the Muslim world would be thrilled to get the chance to ? and behead American soldiers first chance they get.

    Your strategy would also make America hated even more in the Middle East and ? help us if bombs ? the majority Sunni populations in Syria, hell would break lose because most of the Arab world is Sunni. America is better off working with Assad, I still don't know why Obama has so much beef with him.

    I don't care how much they hate us after ww2 the germans hated us the Japanese hated us it made no difference to us then and things turned out for the best. I don't even believe that the average Syrian will hate us, people don't care about who rules them if that ruler can give them a better life especially after living through 2 years of ? war.

    You see isis is largely made up of people from outside Syria the average Syrians themselves want peace food and stability. with us there groups like isis would have to go back to suicide bombing and I am willing to live with that for as long as it takes to create a civilized society there.

    once America made the foolish choice to get involved in Iraq we should never have left until it was running the way we wanted it too and even then we should never have fully left until much later, after we had made a cultural impact on the general beliefs of the population. America did not fully pull out of japan until 1972

    You cannot work with assad he's too much of a blatant dictator no more compromising with these people,they need to be fought until they vanish, with isis you can go in and do what have to do under cover of fighting terrorism.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    as soon as assad is taken down we should invade syria.

    LOL you can't be serious....why in the hell would that be a good idea

    because if we don't there is going to be a larger war sooner or later if we don't do something in iraq we should at least do something in syria, so that we can contain isis someplace, either in iraq or syria. i keep trying to tell you their is no way around the coming fight it has to be done and we are the only people with the ? and power to do it.

    If you're that afraid of Islamists, then you should be trying to protect Assad! He's the one fighting the Islamists, including ISIS. Why invade Syria when Assad still has most of the control there and he's pretty much on your side??

    making friends with these people is a mistake that must not be repeated both sides should be taken down and syria put under united states military governorship like japan was after ww2. if we allow one side to ? the other then invade so after we can rid ourselves of both sides before either solidifies their power.

    It's not that simple though, your strategy is the same horrible mistake we made in Iraq. We got rid of an established govt in Saddam Hussein and tried to start from scratch, America isn't good at nation building lol, look at Afghanistan as another example.

    Taking out ISIS AND ASSAD? You know how ? hard that's gonna be? America knows damn well that ISIS is imbedded with the Syrian population at this point (many of them at least), we would be fighting 3 wars in your scenario, the people of Syria, ISIS and Assad not a good strategy at all. American cities are already doing budget cuts due to severe debt, and you want America to take on more of it?? We're better off working with Assad, at least he isn't a radical like ISIS. And if the people wana be ruled by ISIS, fine, but we can't fight 3 wars in Syria alone man it would be a disaster. We'd need to use nuclear weapons for your strategy.

    No it's not the same. what we did in iraq was try to teach them democracy i don't want to do that. i want to put them directly under our rulership. taking out either side will be easier once one side is all but gone after fighting years of a civil war.

    what you described is exactly not want i want.

    Keeping Syria under a direct rulership requires a puppet because no Syrian would accept an American as the ruler there, and who would be the puppet? Even if one side takes out the other and America goes after the winner, it's still gonna be a difficult plan because America sucks at fighting guerilla warfare. America under your strategy also would have to occupy Syria for a long time because we all know America is considered the Great Satan in the Middle East (For good reason). People from all over the Muslim world would be thrilled to get the chance to ? and behead American soldiers first chance they get.

    Your strategy would also make America hated even more in the Middle East and ? help us if bombs ? the majority Sunni populations in Syria, hell would break lose because most of the Arab world is Sunni. America is better off working with Assad, I still don't know why Obama has so much beef with him.

    I don't care how much they hate us after ww2 the germans hated us the Japanese hated us it made no difference to us then and things turned out for the best. I don't even believe that the average Syrian will hate us, people don't care about who rules them if that ruler can give them a better life especially after living through 2 years of ? war.

    You see isis is largely made up of people from outside Syria the average Syrians themselves want peace food and stability. with us there groups like isis would have to go back to suicide bombing and I am willing to live with that for as long as it takes to create a civilized society there.

    once America made the foolish choice to get involved in Iraq we should never have left until it was running the way we wanted it too and even then we should never have fully left until much later, after we had made a cultural impact on the general beliefs of the population. America did not fully pull out of japan until 1972

    You cannot work with assad he's too much of a blatant dictator no more compromising with these people,they need to be fought until they vanish, with isis you can go in and do what have to do under cover of fighting terrorism.

    It's a very naive belief for you to think a nation as hated as America in the Middle East can ever hope to bring stability to a nation like Syria. You do realize America has been hated in the Middle East since the 60s, if not before right? Each time America sacrifices money and blood to "better" the life of people in that region (aka steal and murder people in that region to steal their resources), things always take a turn for the worse. America can't make a cultural impact in the Middle East because it has zero moral authority there, a country nicknamed the Great Satan in the Middle East has ZERO chance of bringing stability to Syria.

    And even if America did try to do your strategy, it would be extremely expensive. Assad has the backing of Russia and Iran, it's one reason why Assad is still mostly in charge in Syria. To take him out would leave a huge power vacuum and open the floodgates to a 2nd war with ISIS, and NOBODY in American govt, or very few, think taking on ISIS is a good idea. Taking on ISIS means fighting in Iraq again because ISIS remains very powerful in Iraq. They control millions of people in Syria and have control of borders in Jordan and some say recruits in Yemen. Your idea is basically WW3. No one in large numbers will ever support your strategy, it's too expensive, too ambitious and worse, will increase terrorism worldwide. You seem to keep forgetting America is 17 trillion in debt. You also forget America can't even take care of the sick and wounded troops who were ? up by the Taliban and insurgents in Iraq. And you want to add to America's wounded and dead total?
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    I say let Russia and Iran deal with the total mess in Syria, America has enough people around the world who want to blow us up. Blowing up Syrian civilians and creating even more popular support for ISIS is the LAST thing we need to do. There's a reason Obama is wise enough to leave ISIS alone for now, he knows taking them head on will be expensive and will create massive civilian casualties, something ISIS deep down wants because it will cause their recruitment and popularity to increase. You are underestimating how hated America is in the Middle East......we cannot get involved, unless they attack us directly of course.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    @kingblaze84
    In my opinion the united states is only hated by the religious extremist in those nation it is those people that are at the heart of the hate they flare up the young and undereducated. Syria is in a unique situation and I believe that we can sway the population to our side as this war becomes more intense and the suffering increases the average person will desire peace no matter who gives it. I don't want to take assad out I want the rebels to take him out then we come in and take out the rebels who base their rebellion on religious principles, work with those who don't and the other religious minorities, bringing peace. Also it is a lie that America has been stealing resources in the middle east, it's just another anti-American myth.

    like I said in other threads the goal would be if we cannot totally destroy isis everywhere then we must contain isis in one nation until they can be destroyed. As for the debt fears America HAS THE MONEY WE basically can manipulate the world's money as we see fit. You always underestimate the real power America has. THE wounded and dead are collateral damage. I know how that sounds but it is the truth, if you think too much about the people who will die nothing would be done. You are too emotional about the issue of the number of dead.

    ww3 is how we should have approced the problem of militant islam in the first place 9/11 was the perfect excuse to deal with this problem but we wasted that chance. Now we have to deal with it piece by piece which will be more expensive. and if we don't do something now 10-15 years from now things will only get worse reaching a point that we can no longer ignore it.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I say let Russia and Iran deal with the total mess in Syria, America has enough people around the world who want to blow us up. Blowing up Syrian civilians and creating even more popular support for ISIS is the LAST thing we need to do. There's a reason Obama is wise enough to leave ISIS alone for now, he knows taking them head on will be expensive and will create massive civilian casualties, something ISIS deep down wants because it will cause their recruitment and popularity to increase. You are underestimating how hated America is in the Middle East......we cannot get involved, unless they attack us directly of course.

    Russia and iran won't really be dealing with ? , neither has to power needed to deal with this alone or combined Russia won't risk it's blood and iran is already losing in Syria. YOU STILL HAVE NOT come up with a full solution to this problem leaving it alone is not an answer waiting for someone else to fix a problem only you can fix is not answer.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Kingblaze84 our way of dealing with threats is too hope and pray they don't attack. moral authority in war can kick rocks that philosophy is one I don't hold too, more wars have been won without it than with it.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    @kingblaze84
    In my opinion the united states is only hated by the religious extremist in those nation it is those people that are at the heart of the hate they flare up the young and undereducated. Syria is in a unique situation and I believe that we can sway the population to our side as this war becomes more intense and the suffering increases the average person will desire peace no matter who gives it. I don't want to take assad out I want the rebels to take him out then we come in and take out the rebels who base their rebellion on religious principles, work with those who don't and the other religious minorities, bringing peace. Also it is a lie that America has been stealing resources in the middle east, it's just another anti-American myth.

    like I said in other threads the goal would be if we cannot totally destroy isis everywhere then we must contain isis in one nation until they can be destroyed. As for the debt fears America HAS THE MONEY WE basically can manipulate the world's money as we see fit. You always underestimate the real power America has. THE wounded and dead are collateral damage. I know how that sounds but it is the truth, if you think too much about the people who will die nothing would be done. You are too emotional about the issue of the number of dead.

    ww3 is how we should have approced the problem of militant islam in the first place 9/11 was the perfect excuse to deal with this problem but we wasted that chance. Now we have to deal with it piece by piece which will be more expensive. and if we don't do something now 10-15 years from now things will only get worse reaching a point that we can no longer ignore it.

    America is not just hated by religious extremists, it's a widespread hatred all over the region. Some nations there hate us less then others, but the hatred is beyond religious extremists, opinion polls from Americans, Europeans, and Arabs have proven that. I can show up many links to that but you're not a fan of polls because they tend to disagree with your unpopular worldviews.

    As far as containing ISIS in one nation, I"ve already explained that ISIS controls many parts of Syria AND Iraq AND its borders LOL containing ISIS to one spot will be impossible. It's like containing racists to one nation, ISIS has an ideology that is widespread, hence its popular support in many parts of Syria and Iraq.

    You are completely right in that I don't have faith in America's military power, America's military has failed over and over again in its goals for the Middle East. The war on terror continues after 12 years HAHAHAHAHA, so umm yeah I have ZERO faith in American military power doing ? in the Middle East. A military can't do ? if it doesn't have the moral authority needed to have the respect of a population, and the population of the Middle East for the most part has zero respect for American military. Once we left Iraq, it became a disaster. Once we leave Afghanistan, it WILL become a disaster.

    You admit you want World War 3 against the Islamists in the Middle East, I appreciate your honesty. It's something I support other nations doing if they want to do it. America has bled itself dry morally and financially doing constant bombings of Middle Eastern civilians all over the region, and ISIS is one of the results of that. What's the big deal about letting Russia and Iran handle it? Even the VP of Iraq said America shouldn't get involved against ISIS, he said himself "America getting involved will only build popular support for ISIS", I'll bring up a link soon
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    I say let Russia and Iran deal with the total mess in Syria, America has enough people around the world who want to blow us up. Blowing up Syrian civilians and creating even more popular support for ISIS is the LAST thing we need to do. There's a reason Obama is wise enough to leave ISIS alone for now, he knows taking them head on will be expensive and will create massive civilian casualties, something ISIS deep down wants because it will cause their recruitment and popularity to increase. You are underestimating how hated America is in the Middle East......we cannot get involved, unless they attack us directly of course.

    Russia and iran won't really be dealing with ? , neither has to power needed to deal with this alone or combined Russia won't risk it's blood and iran is already losing in Syria. YOU STILL HAVE NOT come up with a full solution to this problem leaving it alone is not an answer waiting for someone else to fix a problem only you can fix is not answer.

    I already have a solution to the problem with ISIS in Syria, LET RUSSIA, ASSAD, AND IRAN HANDLE IT. Yes Iran isn't doing very well fighting against ISIS but ISIS isn't spreading the way it used to either. Thanks to Russia and Iran, ISIS is CONTAINED. Notice ISIS hasn't spread any further into Syria or Iraq, they have their little caliphate yes but it's still a contained one. Iran and Russia, along with Bashar Assad, have done a decent job keeping ISIS from moving into other regions. Even Saudi Arabia has said they are moving troops to its borders to keep ISIS out. I say, good job Russia, Bashar Assad, and Iran for containing ISIS for us.

    You should be happy ISIS is contained. ISIS has no shot of taking Baghdad and no shot of taking over Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Playing captain save a Muslim while bombing tons of Muslim civilians is NO WAY to DECREASE the threat of terrorism. And those moderate rebels you speak of? Many of them have joined ISIS HAHAHA

  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    I say let Russia and Iran deal with the total mess in Syria, America has enough people around the world who want to blow us up. Blowing up Syrian civilians and creating even more popular support for ISIS is the LAST thing we need to do. There's a reason Obama is wise enough to leave ISIS alone for now, he knows taking them head on will be expensive and will create massive civilian casualties, something ISIS deep down wants because it will cause their recruitment and popularity to increase. You are underestimating how hated America is in the Middle East......we cannot get involved, unless they attack us directly of course.

    Russia and iran won't really be dealing with ? , neither has to power needed to deal with this alone or combined Russia won't risk it's blood and iran is already losing in Syria. YOU STILL HAVE NOT come up with a full solution to this problem leaving it alone is not an answer waiting for someone else to fix a problem only you can fix is not answer.

    I already have a solution to the problem with ISIS in Syria, LET RUSSIA, ASSAD, AND IRAN HANDLE IT. Yes Iran isn't doing very well fighting against ISIS but ISIS isn't spreading the way it used to either. Thanks to Russia and Iran, ISIS is CONTAINED. Notice ISIS hasn't spread any further into Syria or Iraq, they have their little caliphate yes but it's still a contained one. Iran and Russia, along with Bashar Assad, have done a decent job keeping ISIS from moving into other regions. Even Saudi Arabia has said they are moving troops to its borders to keep ISIS out. I say, good job Russia, Bashar Assad, and Iran for containing ISIS for us.

    You should be happy ISIS is contained. ISIS has no shot of taking Baghdad and no shot of taking over Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Playing captain save a Muslim while bombing tons of Muslim civilians is NO WAY to DECREASE the threat of terrorism. And those moderate rebels you speak of? Many of them have joined ISIS HAHAHA

    You can hide and be a ? all you want, you can advocate for peace all you want but in 10 years from now when we have to go back to war I hope it's your children they force to fight, all this could have been avoided. Iran becoming more powerful and speading it's influence will be a disaster for us in a few years if we leave this alone.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    @kingblaze84
    In my opinion the united states is only hated by the religious extremist in those nation it is those people that are at the heart of the hate they flare up the young and undereducated. Syria is in a unique situation and I believe that we can sway the population to our side as this war becomes more intense and the suffering increases the average person will desire peace no matter who gives it. I don't want to take assad out I want the rebels to take him out then we come in and take out the rebels who base their rebellion on religious principles, work with those who don't and the other religious minorities, bringing peace. Also it is a lie that America has been stealing resources in the middle east, it's just another anti-American myth.

    like I said in other threads the goal would be if we cannot totally destroy isis everywhere then we must contain isis in one nation until they can be destroyed. As for the debt fears America HAS THE MONEY WE basically can manipulate the world's money as we see fit. You always underestimate the real power America has. THE wounded and dead are collateral damage. I know how that sounds but it is the truth, if you think too much about the people who will die nothing would be done. You are too emotional about the issue of the number of dead.

    ww3 is how we should have approced the problem of militant islam in the first place 9/11 was the perfect excuse to deal with this problem but we wasted that chance. Now we have to deal with it piece by piece which will be more expensive. and if we don't do something now 10-15 years from now things will only get worse reaching a point that we can no longer ignore it.

    America is not just hated by religious extremists, it's a widespread hatred all over the region. Some nations there hate us less then others, but the hatred is beyond religious extremists, opinion polls from Americans, Europeans, and Arabs have proven that. I can show up many links to that but you're not a fan of polls because they tend to disagree with your unpopular worldviews.

    As far as containing ISIS in one nation, I"ve already explained that ISIS controls many parts of Syria AND Iraq AND its borders LOL containing ISIS to one spot will be impossible. It's like containing racists to one nation, ISIS has an ideology that is widespread, hence its popular support in many parts of Syria and Iraq.

    You are completely right in that I don't have faith in America's military power, America's military has failed over and over again in its goals for the Middle East. The war on terror continues after 12 years HAHAHAHAHA, so umm yeah I have ZERO faith in American military power doing ? in the Middle East. A military can't do ? if it doesn't have the moral authority needed to have the respect of a population, and the population of the Middle East for the most part has zero respect for American military. Once we left Iraq, it became a disaster. Once we leave Afghanistan, it WILL become a disaster.

    You admit you want World War 3 against the Islamists in the Middle East, I appreciate your honesty. It's something I support other nations doing if they want to do it. America has bled itself dry morally and financially doing constant bombings of Middle Eastern civilians all over the region, and ISIS is one of the results of that. What's the big deal about letting Russia and Iran handle it? Even the VP of Iraq said America shouldn't get involved against ISIS, he said himself "America getting involved will only build popular support for ISIS", I'll bring up a link soon

    To begin with isis is not popular in Syria isis is made up of people from outside Syria 12 years is nothing we stayed in japan for much longer than that. Moral authority in war is largely just a con game it's mental warfare and nothing else. we leave these nations too soon we try to teach them democracy too soon.

    and which part of Russia won't really do ? can you not understand, iran gaining more power in the middle east only creates more tension between the sunni shia and Israel.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    I say let Russia and Iran deal with the total mess in Syria, America has enough people around the world who want to blow us up. Blowing up Syrian civilians and creating even more popular support for ISIS is the LAST thing we need to do. There's a reason Obama is wise enough to leave ISIS alone for now, he knows taking them head on will be expensive and will create massive civilian casualties, something ISIS deep down wants because it will cause their recruitment and popularity to increase. You are underestimating how hated America is in the Middle East......we cannot get involved, unless they attack us directly of course.

    Russia and iran won't really be dealing with ? , neither has to power needed to deal with this alone or combined Russia won't risk it's blood and iran is already losing in Syria. YOU STILL HAVE NOT come up with a full solution to this problem leaving it alone is not an answer waiting for someone else to fix a problem only you can fix is not answer.

    I already have a solution to the problem with ISIS in Syria, LET RUSSIA, ASSAD, AND IRAN HANDLE IT. Yes Iran isn't doing very well fighting against ISIS but ISIS isn't spreading the way it used to either. Thanks to Russia and Iran, ISIS is CONTAINED. Notice ISIS hasn't spread any further into Syria or Iraq, they have their little caliphate yes but it's still a contained one. Iran and Russia, along with Bashar Assad, have done a decent job keeping ISIS from moving into other regions. Even Saudi Arabia has said they are moving troops to its borders to keep ISIS out. I say, good job Russia, Bashar Assad, and Iran for containing ISIS for us.

    You should be happy ISIS is contained. ISIS has no shot of taking Baghdad and no shot of taking over Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Playing captain save a Muslim while bombing tons of Muslim civilians is NO WAY to DECREASE the threat of terrorism. And those moderate rebels you speak of? Many of them have joined ISIS HAHAHA

    You can hide and be a ? all you want, you can advocate for peace all you want but in 10 years from now when we have to go back to war I hope it's your children they force to fight, all this could have been avoided. Iran becoming more powerful and speading it's influence will be a disaster for us in a few years if we leave this alone.

    It's not about being a ? , it's about being SMART. You underestimate how hated America is in the region and that us giving aid to the "moderate" rebels will only backfire because AGAIN, Assad is FIGHTING the Islamists and terrorists you CLAIM you hate. ASSAD IS DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO BE DONE. So is Russia and Iran. YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY RUSSIA, IRAN, and ASSAD ARE DOING THE HARD WORK FOR US.

    As far as Iran becoming more powerful and influential in the region, NEWSFLASH: THIS IS EXACTLY what people predicted would happen once we took Saddam out. You fail to realize that sometimes in life, there really aren't any good choices. Sometimes the BEST choice out of all bad choices is to let others do the work.

    Oh and I have ANOTHER newsflash for you: ISIS was partially created by American, Turkish, and Jordanian govt officials who provided AID and WEAPONS to "moderate rebels" who are fighting Assad. Now look at how brilliant that idea was.....ISIS IS TRAINED TO USE AMERICAN WEAPONS and they have lots of them LOL, and you want to aid those "moderate" rebels more? You want MORE rebels having American made weapons and funds? You wanna create more ISIS like groups? Caliph of ISIS, is that you?
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2014
    @Zombie and anyone FOOLISH enough to think aiding those moderate rebels in Syria is a good idea....

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-made-in-usa-iraq-geopolitical-arsonists-seek-to-burn-region/5387475

    ISIS “Made in USA”. Iraq “Geopolitical Arsonists” Seek to Burn Region


    ISIS: Made in USA

    The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a creation of the United States and its Persian Gulf allies, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and recently added to the list, Kuwait. The Daily Beast in an article titled, “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS,” states:

    The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.

    The 9 page, extensive report has since been vindicated many times over with revelations of US, NATO, and Persian Gulf complicity in raising armies of extremists within Libya and along Syria’s borders. ISIS itself, which is claimed to occupy a region stretching from northeastern Syria and across northern and western Iraq, has operated all along Turkey’s border with Syria, “coincidentally” where the US CIA has conducted years of “monitoring” and arming of “moderate” groups.

    In fact, the US admits it has armed, funded, and equipped “moderates” to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. In a March 2013 Telegraph article titled, “US and Europe in ‘major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb’,” it was reported that a single program included 3,000 tons of weapons sent in 75 planeloads paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States. The New York Times in its article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid,” admits that the CIA assisted Arab governments and Turkey with military aid to terrorists fighting in Syria constituting hundreds of airlifts landing in both Jordan and Turkey.

    --So Zombie.....you wanna create another ISIS group? Then go right on ahead, and give those terrorists I mean moderate rebels millions of dollars in aid and guns. And let's see those same rebel groups turn against America, as usual. Your ideas of arming the "moderate rebels" will only benefit ISIS, as ISIS is a clever enemy....they have people on the ground who speak English and can pretend to not be extremists. And Caliph Ibrahim will enjoy even more weapons and money, thanks to Americans who don't realize how hated they are in the region and that Assad is really not the bad guy here.