Home | About | Donate

Does US-Russia Ceasefire Deal in Syria Spell End of 'Assad Must Go' Policy?


#1

Does US-Russia Ceasefire Deal in Syria Spell End of 'Assad Must Go' Policy?

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Suggesting that a more sober U.S. position is emerging—and cautious hope that bloodshed in the war-torn country may soon lessen—the United States and Russia on Monday announced that a "cessation of hostilities" in Syria will go into effect on Saturday, February 27.


#2

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#3

the US is totally paralysed and hobbled by this crazy insistence that Assad must go when it's clear to all that Assad, brutal as he may be, is still the last best hope for Syria and the Middle East.

This bewailing that he's brutal won't wash. All US sponsored replacements are likely to be even more brutal with the added benefit of total chaos to boot.


#5

What is happening is this. As Europe is flooded with migrants Turkey pushes war with Russia. Turkey threatens Europe with releasing more migrants into Europe unless they get Europe's support.

Now under the NATO treaty a number of nations feel that NATO may be forced into a war with Russia that Europe does not want. This has lead to a number of groups inside Europe having second thoughts about NATO , seeing its existence as more likely to lead to war than less likely. Indeed many German businessmen see more a future for profits in Russia and China than they do in the USA.

Inside Europe there groups advocating divorcing itself from NATO and having Europe create its own self defense forces, This would seriously affect US influence in the region which is not something the USA wants. In order to ensure "world hegemony" the USA has to ensure it controls West Europe and those countries remain as Client States.

So this has nothing to do with the USA wanting peace in our times. Their previous position might well threaten the existence of NATO and their dominance of the same and so they are backing off.


#6

You would be totally out of reality if you think the United States (under our current corporate 'leadership') want "Peace in our times". By what right can we say, "Assad Must Go!"? By what right do we have for world hegemony? Who the hell do we think we are? Best bet for us would be to say, "Good by, we did our best to bring you democracy but we have to go home now and take care of things in our homeland." AND GET THE HELL OUT!!

We looked and looked and found no Weapons of Mass Destruction, or any nuclear war heads or labs, and there is NO REAL EVIDENCE that any Arabs had a thing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. (oh, I forgot about the evidence of the miraculous driver's licence
that survived a plane crash, a terrible fire, and the collapsing at free fall speed of a 100 story building to land in perfect shape in the street on several inches of very fine dust.)

There is something really weird about the 'official story" of 9/11. I don't believe it and I don't think you do either. Time for a real investigation of what happened on that day and WHO DID IT?


#7

What language is being spoken here? A freehand translation is pure Cold War speak to my ears.

Said with a Russian accent it sounded like 'F'n Turkey better cut their sh*t because we will go down the road and this is non negotiable because of National Proximity considerations.'

Said with an American accent it sounded like 'F'n Turkey's pushing buttons and stepping into it expecting that we will do a dance with the bear for them down the road. Dumb shit and we'd better straighten them out.'
'


#8

Assad's troops were on the verge of retaking Aleppo, and that would've essentially ended this thing. I'm curious as to what lines were drawn up, but if it's true that Nusra and other islamist forces are excluded, then apparently the US is conceding Aleppo, which would be the first good news for those poor souls in a few years.
I don't have high confidence in this agreement, but if it shuts Turkey and the Saudi pigs the hell up, it can't be all that bad.


#9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#10

For some reason I was reading about international alliances just before World War II. Germany helped China early on in its war against Japan. Germany and The Soviet Union signed a peace treaty that divided Poland. Britain attacked the remaining French navy with warships just after the fall of mainland France. In the 1940s President Roosevelt called the U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union and China, "the world's four policemen." The Soviet Union didn't attack Japan until the very end of WWII.

When I read about all of the armed players in the Mideast, I'm equally amazed by their shifting alliances. Saudi Arabia squares off against Iran. The U.S. has a friend in the Egyptian military. Russia has made friends with Mr. Assad. Russia is committing war crimes in bombing the hospitals of pro-US Syrian forces, and Assad is using mass starvation on this force's civilians. The Kurds, a people cut apart from each other by artificial lines in 1920, keep attacking the Turks, who in turn invade Kurdish territory in Syria. Sunnis in Iraq welcome ISIS as liberators from the Shiite government in Baghdad. All sorts of people hate the Semitic Christians, just on principle.

Into this cauldron the United States Army charges, intent on seizing oil fields so that someone like British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell, good American brand names, can effectively extract the oil from under the soil of all these people. Our drone bombings in third party countries ostensibly at peace with the U.S. are legend. Our torture tactics at places such as Abu Grahib prison are legend. Our tortures at Guantanamo are world-famous. Our poisoning of entire cities and of regions of Iraq with depleted uranium dust, turning the places into giant cancer factories, are legend.


#13

Well, what did you expect? Boeing builds war planes and commercial airliners. The US Fourth Reich government and the Saudis buy both. I'm sure Boeing's paid lobbyists will work hard to help the Wicked Witch of the West and the Wahabi War Party to build power and more war. Look at the profits! Billion$ in planes, drones, missiles and bombs. Most of it paid for out of our taxes!
;-})


#14

This is the kind of stuff only Trump would bring up in a general election against Hillary. All these filthy corrupt Clinton ties that Rubio, Cruz and (sadly) Sanders would never touch.

Trump? He'd hold this stuff up like a dead skunk on national TV and we'd all get to watch the War Witch squirm.


#18

Finding information is not always that easy. For example rumours have trickled in that the battle of A'Zaz is a Stalingrad type of battle raging now in Syria as vital routes in and out of Turkey will either change hands or be closed entirely. Half a million troops flying under the flags of many countries and groups are facing off, yet the MSM reports nothing from the region. Wire services like Reuters and AP have no new news on the conflict. Internet connections are sporadic at best in that part of the world and even if we had 'journalists on the ground' we're not sure if their stories would make it into the mainstream anyway!
Each day I read numerous newspapers from around the world on the net only to find that some "breaking news" occuring somewhere, is not even mentioned in another part of the world or even sometimes right across the border. So if 5,000 people died in A'Zaz today, we may not hear or read anything about it. Some of it is by design as major networks can out right reject selective information, but it is also a consequence of fewer paid journalists out there reporting. I know personally that if I were a journalist now working for AP, Reuters or the New York Times and they asked me to go to A'Zaz and report, I would probably consider that moment as an opportune time to change careers.
My point is if you rely on the internet, newspapers, T.V.'s and radio broadcasts for your information (as most of us do who don't have first hand knowledge of events beyond our communities), you will still end up being out of the loop on most events that you on a personal level would consider very relevant. Seeking the truth can sometimes be nothing more than a fruitless endeavour despite our best intentions.


#19

"Inside Europe there groups advocating divorcing itself from NATO and having Europe create its own self defense forces, " This has been desired for decades, but the USA, pretending to "protect its allies" via NATO, has been able to bribe and threaten Europe to accept its dominance, which has of course caused a lot of the conflict eg with Russia, Iran... which the USA chooses to call enemies. Peace is an evil word to the USA and Israel.


#21

Totally wrong about Bernie. In no way does he propose trickle down and in fact the opposite. He advocates a rise from the bottom instead.


#22

I had mentioned the other day that having failed to bring all of Syria to collapse with the installation of a US Client state due to the intervention of Russia, the US would pursue a plan of dividing Syria up into smaller states.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/23/john-kerry-partition-syria-peace-talks


#23

I agree with Wereflea, so perhaps you are just confused as to the terms. A trickle down economy – think Ronald Reagan – is one modeled toward the advantage of the already advantaged so supposedly that economic growth to that demographic somehow trickles down to everyone else.

I agree with others that Sander's proposals are trickle up instead.


#24

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#25

Most of us at this site read extensively (I would hope) but books are useless when it comes to current affairs. No book out there can give me an update on the fighting in Syria or any event that occurred in the last few days. As for 'alternative news', no site I know of has the resources to send people to places like Iraq, Yemen or Syria to give us a current and accurate account of what is happening. Unfortunately most alternative news sites depend on unconfirmed social media tweets or something similar to find out what is happening in dangerous places and that is only if they are lucky enough to have a reliable source there with an internet connection. If the New York Times can't afford to send a journalist to Syria, I seriously doubt that an alternative, independent site like Common Dreams or Democracy Now could.