Write Review
1,980,257 Total Reviews 3,656 New Reviews
11,032 Users Online

Politics and Religion

“ Syrians are free from Assad in spite of the Biden administration, not because of it.”
cks175 44 Reviews 297 reads
posted

From Eli Lake, The Free Press,

Assad’s Fall Has Humiliated Washington
Everything that Biden claims is a legacy of his is a lie. History will not treat this crook kindly.
According to President Joe Biden, the end of Bashar al-Assad’s tyranny in Syria was made possible by his administration’s foreign policy. Speaking from the White House on Sunday in a televised address, he said, “For years the main backers of Assad have been Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia, but over the last week their support collapsed, all three of them, because all three of them are far weaker today than they were when I took office.”
Try not to laugh.
Biden attributes the woes that have befallen this alleged “Axis of Resistance” to “the blows Ukraine [and] Israel have delivered upon their own self-defense with unflagging support of the United States.”
This isn’t just a deceptive telling of recent history. Biden has it backward. While it’s true that Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia are weaker today than they were when Biden was inaugurated as president, it’s not because Biden had the foresight to unleash the Jewish state against America’s enemies in the Middle East. It’s because Israel defied Biden’s efforts to restrain it. Syria has toppled its tyrant in spite of the Biden administration, not because of it.
Lake goes on to explain how none of this could have happened if Israel had listened to Biden, and then traces all the failures of Biden’s foreign policy back to Obama doctrines that essentially were all about appeasing Iran and Russia, while sleighing Mideast allies, to secure a nuclear deal.
On the second day of 2020, Trump ordered the air strike that killed Qasem Suleimani, the Iranian general and architect of Iran’s strategy of building up regional proxies throughout the Middle East.
But after Biden won the 2020 election, the old Obama approach returned. One of the first priorities of Biden’s new administration was to restore the nuclear bargain that Trump tried to scuttle. And Iran’s proxies continued to become emboldened. No worries. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan boasted last year, “The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.” Oops—eight days after Sullivan made those remarks at the Atlantic Festival, Hamas launched its October 7 pogrom.
Excellent article, well worth a read.
Biden’s empty boast about Assad’s demise is a punch line. But his foreign policy was not an anomaly. He channeled the Obama-era conventional wisdom that captured a generation of Washington’s foreign policy elites. Their assumptions about Iran now lay bare and exposed for the world to see as the region realigns. And yet they remain in their perches on Congressional committees, at the best think tanks, and in the top op-ed pages. So it’s worth asking: What else might they be wrong about?
Photo: Anti-government rebels celebrate in Damascus, Syria, on December 8, 2024. (Louai Beshara via Getty Images)
Related Link: So it’s worth asking: What else might they be wrong about?”

SnowKing6912 reads

And showing that filthy war criminal putin is just a paper tiger

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4613 reads

The biggest losers here are Russia, Iran, Hezbolla and Hamas, none of which are our friends. The biggest gainers here (besides the Syrian people) are Israel and Turkey, both of whom are our allies.
This is clearly a gain for US foreign policy because Russia and Iran have both lost a ton of influence in the region.
So how in hell is this a humiliation for Biden? It's not.
This clown Lake is clearly a toxic partisan. And by showing his willingness to lap up this nonsense simply because it's anti-Biden and anti-Democrat, ChicKie has once again proven himself a complete partisan hack.

ReplyQuoteReport
coeur-de-lion13 reads

free press go "anti-Democrat."   This seems to me like a guy just making an honest observation of the reality of the situation.  

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4614 reads

If our two biggest enemies have lost their position in Syria; if a dictator who has been their client has been toppled; if Israel is now stronger and more secure; if US and Israeli air forces bombed the shit out of Syria so the new Islamist government has no Air Force, Navy, chemical weapons and other gear, how in the world is that a humiliation for US policy or Biden?
This is simply a bizarre turning of reality on its head.

ReplyQuoteReport
coeur-de-lion11 reads

had backed the Assad government.  When it comes to foreign policy, there are very few things, if any, that Biden got right, not just as President, but throughout his political career.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4616 reads

Unless or until you provide some proof for this statement I will assume you just pulled it out of your ass (per usual) because you don't have anything factual to dispute my posts on this.

ReplyQuoteReport
durran42117 reads

Why don't you prove it's not true? Since you have all the answers.

And nice job btw. And don't act dumb. Way to go.......

ReplyQuoteReport
coeur-de-lion12 reads

Biden sent American troops into Syria to keep the remnants of ISIS at bay?  Who does that help, except Assad?  Now Biden has to worry about getting them out.  Maybe if he gives them a lot of military hardware like he did the Taliban, they will let our troops leave with only a dozen or so casualties.  

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4615 reads

It was actually Obama. Trump wanted to remove them but was convinced that would be a bad idea, so there were there during his ENTIRE TERM. Here's what Reuters has to say about it.
Time for CDL to take the L on this one and bring The SPOAT along with him.
"The U.S. military intervention in Syria began in 2014 with air strikes against the Islamic State jihadist group that had declared its rule over a third of Syria and Iraq.
An initially small contingent of U.S. special forces deployed to Syria, working with the SDF, fighting to drive Islamic State from areas it had captured in Syria's north and east.
Declaring the battle with Islamic State almost won, Trump announced in 2018 he wanted to pull out U.S. troops.
But the plan was softened within a year after facing criticism for leaving a void that Iran and Russia would fill.
U.S. forces remain in Syria and continue to support the SDF.
U.S. military positions and personnel in northeastern Syria remain essential to ensuring Islamic State can never resurge, U.S. Ambassador Robert Wood told the Security Council on Dec. 3.
U.S. troops are also stationed at Syria's Tanf garrison near the intersection of the borders of Jordan and Iraq, where they support a Syrian rebel force to counter Islamic State in the area.
Assad's government views the U.S. forces as occupiers.
About 900 US troops are currently in the country, mostly in the northeast."
In other words the US troops were NOT there to prop up Assad. They have been in the far Southeast of the country and not near any territory controlled by Assad. He didn't give a fuck about them. He was focused on the North of his country.

ReplyQuoteReport
coeur-de-lion16 reads

And if my memory serves me correctly, Biden is STILL the commander-in-chief.   If he didn't support having American troops in Syria, they wouldn't be there.  They are clearly NOT assisting the rebels, so Assad is the beneficiary of them keeping ISIS in check, although it's a moot point now that Assad has fled.  I'm sure Biden said something to Assad about not thanking him publicly for keeping ISIS away from the capital, wink, wink.  

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4613 reads

You didn't SAY Biden supported "having American troops in Syria." You said he put them there. He didn't.
And Assad was not "the beneficiary" of them keeping ISIS in check. The main beneficiary has been Iraq, which suffered greatly under ISIS. And I sincerely doubt Assad has ever even talked to Biden let alone thanked him.
CDL will say almost anything to avoid taking the L. Even when he's lost.

ReplyQuoteReport
coeur-de-lion11 reads

still can SOUND convincing.  Time for school.  There is no military theatre in the world where Americans are stationed overseas for four years.  The typical "tour" of duty is one to two years.   If it's a base of an ally, such as Germany or Japan, it will be two years.  If it's a combat zone, typically 12-15 months.  I guaranfuckingteeyou that there have been no troops within the last two years that were sent there by Trump.  Troops are rotated through areas where there is action, which means Biden could have stopped the flow anytime he wanted to, but he didn't.  He kept SENDING fresh troops to replace the ones who had finished their tour.  

 
It's okay, when you don't know how things really work, it's easy to assume things that are incorrect.  Sorry to embarrass you, but the military is an area of expertise for me, as I have demonstrated before.   As commander in chief, Biden absolutely has sent troops to Syria, to quell any ISIS advance towards Damascus, and that helped Assad.  It's irrelevant who may have sent troops there before Biden was President.  Biden shitcanned every other mission Trump put in place and did something different (Afghanistan is an example), yet he affirmatively continued sending troops to Syria on HIS watch.  Trump no longer had the authority to continue the mission, only Biden did.  There is no other way to view it.  I think we both know who gets the "L" on this one.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4616 reads

based on a meaningless "distinction" about the length of a tour. I really wonder if you have any clue how transparent you are. Possibly it's a result of your desperate attempt to continue avoiding taking the L you so richly have earned.
You are the King of "distinction without a difference."
Enjoy your stay in the Land of Denial.
Sorry, but the L is tatooed on your forehead.

ReplyQuoteReport
coeur-de-lion12 reads

claiming Biden has not sent any troops to Syria.  Glad to straighten you out on that point.  You got crushed on that one, and yet, you still think you won.  Who's in denial.    

 
Just remember how this started.  I said Biden sent troops to Syria to curtail ISIS, which helps Assad.  You said they were already there, and that Biden didn't send them.  I proved they are not the same troops, so Biden HAS sent troops   There is a difference even though you don't see it, it's who posted the troops there.  The troops there NOW were sent by Biden.  The Trump solders all went home two or more years ago.   I need to take tap dancing lessons from you.  You've got it down to a science.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4624 reads

You did NOT prove "Biden HAS sent troops." You failed utterly.  So you had to fall back on a technicality that troops had to be rotated in and out and you called that "sending them." All this while evading the fact that Obama originally sent them and Trump KEPT them there (after saying he wouldn't), as did Biden.
In a career of embarrassing and fact-free posts, this is one of your most ludicrous ever. Talk about being in denial.

ReplyQuoteReport
coeur-de-lion13 reads

right now, save the ones that Biden sent.  Look it up, the Army does not post soldiers overseas for four years.  All tours abroad are shorter.  Obama's military response to ISIS, who he described as the JV team while they were beheading Americans was an embarrassment.  Are you sure you want to go there?  Even if you do, the same thing applies.  There are NO troops there that were sent by Obama unless they are on a second tour sent by Biden.   Show me anywhere since WWII where a solder has been posted overseas for more than two years continuously.   (There is a provision for 36 months when your family accompanies you to the foreign posting, but all postings to Syria are unaccompanied, with a 24-month OR LESS, max.  Who wants to settle their family in Syria for three years unless they REALLY hated their wife and kids?  Lol)

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4611 reads

You are now simply repeating your idiotic, non-germane technicalities that have ZERO to do with the fact that all THREE past Presidents supported having troops there. But only Trump said he'd pull them out and then failed to do so.
Your inability to understand or take your well-deserved L on this shows what a complete buffoon you are.
Take the last word if you need it but it won't change that fact that you've utterly failed. I'm done here.

ReplyQuoteReport
coeur-de-lion17 reads

taught us when he took office is that no incoming President has to continue the policies of his predecessor.   The fact that Biden elected to keep sending replacement troops to Syria was his call, not in deference to Trump, who he despised and took affirmative steps to eliminate most of Trump's policies.   There would have been a discussion at some point in Biden's presidency with the Pentagon on whether to draw down the force in Syria that was left from the Trump administration.   Otherwise, they would have all rotated home and there would be no one left there today.  THAT is the procedure within the military.  The withdrawal in Vietnam began the same way, as soldiers finished their tours and rotated home, no replacements were sent, so the fighting force in-country diminished significantly over the space of a year.  Biden SENDING replacements under his watch was the ONLY way to keep troop levels the same in Syria.  I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand.  I'm any other ex-military guys here understand the process and may have been involved in rotations one place or another.

ReplyQuoteReport
SnowKing6912 reads

The Middle East has long been defined by complex conflicts, yet pride of place is likely Syria since the outbreak of the civil war in 2011. U.S. forces, operating there since 2014, officially against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), are involved in one of the more perplexing elements of that conflict.

That would have been Obama - not Biden that sent them in 2014.  Because again, they were cutting heads off people and we wanted to stop that.  

Claiming your some kind of military expert and then saying Biden sent troops to help Asad - demonstrates that you are FULL OF FUCKING PARTISAN SHIT

ReplyQuoteReport
SnowKing6913 reads

except your full of shit ... again...

President-elect Donald Trump, who during his first term opted to keep U.S. troops in Syria for the openly stated purpose of exploiting the country's oil fields, wrote in a social media post on Saturday that "the United States should have nothing to do with" the current conflict.

What are US forces doing in Syria?
Singh emphasized that the U.S. mission in Syria is "to counter ISIS and to support our local partners on the ground, the Syrian Democratic Forces, to ensure that ISIS can never reestablish a safe haven there."

Not to help Asad - remember when ISIS was kidnapping and cutting heads off people?  Yeah, we wanted to stop that.

ReplyQuoteReport
cks17516 reads

It’s clear he didn’t read the piece, which went back to Obama foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically the decision to appease Iran for the sake of the nuclear deal.

Lake acknowledges that Assad’s downfall is good for the US and the region. Nicky agrees with that part. What Nicky hates to admit is that Assad is gone, at the hands Israel and Turkey, in spite of Biden’s continuing appeasement of the Iranians.  Fortunately Biden won’t be around too much longer to screw things up, and we can hope for a more peaceful future for the people of the Middle East.0

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4613 reads

How in the world did ChicKie invent the idea that I hate "to admit" "that Assad is gone?" In fact, I'm very happy he's gone. But keep making stuff up, ChicKie.

ReplyQuoteReport
cks17513 reads

I definitely didn’t mean to say Nicky hates to admit that Assad is gone. When that comma is dropped you get to my actual intent, that Nicky hates to admit that Assad is gone at the hands of Erdogan and BiBi, not Biden (AKA “The Big Guy”).

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4613 reads

I will stipulate that I can't stand Bibi and am not a big fan of Erdogan either. But that does NOT mean I hate to admit they played a large role in getting rid of Assad. That is simply a rational view of the facts, something all too lacking among our large claque of political hacks.

ReplyQuoteReport
cks17512 reads

But that does NOT mean I hate to admit they played a large role in getting rid of Assad. That is simply a rational view of the facts
Hopefully we’ll see more of this in future debates.

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4612 reads

I always take a rational view of the facts. So nothing has changed.  But ChicKie is only able to perceive "progress" when someone agrees with him.

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u18 reads

…another Middle East country getting taken over by Islamic extremists like the ones who flew planes into buildings is a win for Biden, the USA or the West generally. Especially given how many Muslim extremists now live in the West, including the USA, thanks to woketard leftists who couldn’t figure out that terrorism was a bad thing.

ReplyQuoteReport
lester_prairie28 reads

USA continues to turn situations into worse crap shows. Not a lot of hope that this will turn out better. In Syria now the purge killings are amping up. One slaughter after another.

ReplyQuoteReport
CalebWilliams16 reads

Iran isn’t our friend? Since when? Your BFF SJB has been harder on our best ally Israel than Iran. “Free” cash. Unimpeded access to world oil markets. Allowing the massive funding and equipping of malign Mideast actors (Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah etc) on and on and on. Your guy SJB had his tongue so far up the ayatollah’s ass the tip popped out of his ear.  

Your sorry excuse making for your guys foreign policy incompetence is so pitiful and laughable.

ReplyQuoteReport
SnowKing6916 reads

Now filthy maga traitor cunts are lying your little cunt asses off and saying Biden is/was supporting Iran?  What a shit for brain moron. Iran is our mortal enemy, just like filthy war criminal putin

ReplyQuoteReport
CalebWilliams16 reads

Don’t suppose you read my post did you? If Iran is was our mortal enemy why did remove oil and banking sanctions on our “mortal enemy?” Why haven’t we taken out their nuke program if they’re our “mortal enemy?” Snowflake.

ReplyQuoteReport
SnowKing6914 reads

Killing the Iran nuclear deal was one of Trump's biggest failures
Six years after the US withdrew from the JCPOA, prospects for its resurrection are dim and Tehran is closer than ever to a bomb

DUHHHH!!!! Dumb fuck....

Six years after former President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the disastrous consequences of this decision are still adding up.

In addition to Iran being closer than ever to a nuclear weapons capability, now we must consider how the declining security situation in the Middle East has raised the stakes significantly. Trump promised a “better deal” but instead we got an increasingly costly blunder that may be impossible to fix.

Related Link: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-nuclear-deal/

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky4614 reads

they may accelerate their nuke program. Then we'll what Trump does.

ReplyQuoteReport
cks17510 reads

Sir Keir Starmer facing public cabinet row after Wes Streeting criticised Ed Miliband over failure to back military action against Bashar al-Assad's regime in 2013

Streeting told BBC Question Time that 'if the West had acted faster, Assad would have been gone'.  

'With hindsight, I think we can say, looking back on the events of 2013, that the hesitation of this country and the United States created a vacuum that Russia moved into and kept Assad in power for much longer'

Miliband tries a “But Trump” excuse:
Ed Miliband says Streeting is 'just wrong'. 'We know that President Trump bombed Syria in 2017 and 2018. Clearly, that didn't produce the fall of President Assad's regime.  

'So when people say that somehow if we bombed President Assad in 2013, he would have toppled over, frankly, it's just wrong'

It’s generating a lot of commentary on X.
Liz Mair:
“Because something didn’t have a particular effect 4-5 years after an inflection point, it wouldn’t have had an effect around the actual inflection point” is a fucking nuts take, Ed Miliband.
Writer Tom Doran:
The really contemptible thing about Miliband's actions in 2013, which we now know to have been decisive in saving Assad, is that they weren't rooted in any principle at all. He simply saw the opportunity to win brownie points from Labour's "anti-war" left, consequences be damned.
MP Simon Hoare:
Fwiw @wesstreeting is right. The west set red lines. They were breached. Miliband’s Labour resiled from an agreement. Obama took fright. Not defending a red line was a green light to Putin for Crimea and now Ukraine & so on.
Related Link: Obama/Biden Policy On Syria? Shameful

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!