Somalia Gov ally Qatar flexes its muscles on UAE

[Futurist]

@IslamIsTheAnswer You are wrong.

USA is actually strenghtening is relationship with UAE, Saudi Arabia. Iran is a pariah state and Somalia Federal Government in Mogadishu is siding with a pariah state.

Just this week the US government announced this.

Somaliland is aligned with UAE and Saudi Arabia as a partner.

 

[wars]

@IslamIsTheAnswer You are wrong.

USA is actually strenghtening is relationship with UAE, Saudi Arabia. Iran is a pariah state and Somalia Federal Government in Mogadishu is siding with a pariah state.

Just this week the US government announced this.

Somaliland is aligned with UAE and Saudi Arabia as a partner.

Go and eat your porcupine you dirty scumbag isaaq.

 

[TheAnswer]

@IslamIsTheAnswer You are wrong.

USA is actually strenghtening is relationship with UAE, Saudi Arabia. Iran is a pariah state and Somalia Federal Government in Mogadishu is siding with a pariah state.

Just this week the US government announced this.

Somaliland is aligned with UAE and Saudi Arabia as a partner.

Assembling an Arab/Muslim force to occupy and save Syria is a pipe dream. It's a polite fantasy thrown around to give heart to those who can't swallow the fact that Bashar Al Assad, despite killing almost three hundred thousand civilians and using chemical weapons multiple times, will emerge from the Syrian civil war as the victor.

Here is Emile Hoykem, a Middle East expert who is hostile to the Assad regime, dismissing the idea:

As for the U.S strengthening its position in the Middle East, this is also incorrect. Here is Trump saying on Twitter that the money spent in the M.E in the past was a waste and he's now focusing internally:

 

[Cumar]

You don't appear to have any understanding of U.S politics, or how the conflict in the Middle East is shaping out.

Since being burned in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S has decided to pull back from the Middle East and foreign policy adventurism. Both the elites and the general public, of both the GOP and the Democratic party, are now very wary of getting involved in foreign disputes over there, which is why they let Assad remain in power and ignored the active involvement of both Iran and Russia, and their numerous proxy groups, in the Syrian civil war.

Russia's bluff was not called anywhere. Trump launched a few reactive missile strikes after Bashar used chemical weapons despite being told multiple times not to do so. The missile strikes were just a weak slap on the wrist. The Washington foreign policy establishment agrees that Assad will remain in power, and this is big a win for Russia and Iran.

The Saudis and Emiratis know that the U.S is not the patron and protector it once was. Which is why they're now trying to suck up to Russia. Senile King Salman took his private jet and golden escalator to Moscow a few months ago to meet with Putin. Sadly for the pathetic Saudis, Russia isn't interested in (or even capable of) protecting them from Iran. Moreover, Iran is a much more capable and enticing geopolitical ally for Russia than the Saudis. The Saudis have a lot of cash (and even that is now increasingly running out), but nothing more. Iran, on the other hand, has a network of highly effective proxy groups all throughout the Middle East. They call the shots everywhere from Beirut to Baghdad, while the Saudis can't even control Mogadishu anymore let alone other M.E capitals.

This is a tangent from Somalia though. We're not actively aligned with Iran/Russia, but its relevant to discuss their strengths because it shows how weak the UAE and Saudi Arabia are.

You completely misunderstood what I wrote before. No credible political observer was calling for regime change in Syria. The alternative to Assad in Syria is much much worse for the west. US is pursuing much more hawkish foreign policy under Trump than Obama. Under Obama, multiple "Red Lines" were crossed in Syria and the US purposely looked the other-way. Pretty much, the devil we know (Assad) is preferable to the devil we don't (Jihadists and Anti-west Islamist extremists).

It is a slap on the wrist yes, but it is a hell of a lot more forceful than the frankly dovish US foreign policy we saw under Obama. A slap on the wrist is what is needed to stop the use of chemical weapons. The risk is if you strike too hard, you actually help the anti-west jihadist elements that would benefit from a power vacuum in regime change policy. If you don't believe me, look at the direct consequences of what happened in Libya post Gaddafi and in Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood aligned Morsi took over briefly.

 

[TheAnswer]

You completely misunderstood what I wrote before. No credible political observer was calling for regime change in Syria. The alternative to Assad in Syria is much much worse for the west. US is pursuing much more hawkish foreign policy under Trump than Obama. Under Obama, multiple "Red Lines" were crossed in Syria and the US purposely looked the other-way. Pretty much, the devil we know (Assad) is preferable to the devil we don't (Jihadists and Anti-west Islamist extremists).

It is a slap on the wrist yes, but it is a hell of a lot more forceful than the frankly dovish US foreign policy we saw under Obama. A slap on the wrist is what is needed to stop the use of chemical weapons. The risk is if you strike too hard, you actually help the anti-west jihadist elements that would benefit from a power vacuum in regime change policy. If you don't believe me, look at the direct consequences of what happened in Libya post Gaddafi and in Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood aligned Morsi took over briefly.

I understood what you said and it was all wrong.

Yes, they were calling for Assad to be removed. Those calls were only muted after ISIS came on the scene. But even with ISIS, there was hope (however limited) that Assad could be negotiated out or defeated by moderate rebels. Only in the past few months, with his near total military victory, have all calls for regime change died down. You make it seem as if the U.S was never pursuing regime change and that's totally incorrect.

As for Trump, his foreign policy in the M.E is more reactive than Obama's, indicating his somewhat impulsive temperament, but fundamentally he is similar to Obama in the sense that he's not interested in any long-term commitment to the Middle East.

His intent to leave Syria to its own devices was something Trump clearly signaled when he declared on March 29 that American troops would be departing there “very soon.” “Let other people take care of it,” he told a rally of his supporters in Ohio, foreshadowing his more detailed remarks on Friday night.

Source: Brookings Institute

 

[DRACO]

You should avoid geopolitical discussions if you don't even know how to use the word 'analogy' correctly.

we all mix words sometimes
Analysis i meant.
Now kindly f*ck off

 

[Cumar]

I understood what you said and it was all wrong.

Yes, they were calling for Assad to be removed. Those calls were only muted after ISIS came on the scene. But even with ISIS, there was hope (however limited) that Assad could be negotiated out or defeated by moderate rebels. Only in the past few months, with his near total military victory, have all calls for regime change died down. You make it seem as if the U.S was never pursuing regime change and that's totally incorrect.

As for Trump, his foreign policy in the M.E is more reactive than Obama's, indicating his somewhat impulsive temperament, but fundamentally he is similar to Obama in the sense that he's not interested in any long-term commitment to the Middle East.



Source: Brookings Institute

What I said wasn't factually wrong at all though. I meant from a credibility standpoint, the fundamental problem in Syria is there isn't a sizeable pro-western rebel force on the ground that controls vast swathes of Syrian territory. The only reliable and effective partners for the west in that arena are the Kurds. That is the facts. Further complicating matters is that a lot of theses rebel factions are actually sectarian in nature and composed of foreign fighters. They fight amongst themselves just as much as they with pro-government forces. So yes, while regime change may have been a military option before like you point out, it isn't a serious option being considered now as all credible observers have indicated that Assad is actually winning the ground war at present time.

 

[TheAnswer]

we all mix words sometimes
Analysis i meant.
Now kindly f*ck off

You're still wrong. Not even the world 'analysis' is proper in that context.
Now go and work on your vocabulary before joining discussions that you probably can't understand.

 

[Cumar]

@IslamIsTheAnswer btw are you a politics/international relations student by any chance?

 

[TheAnswer]

@IslamIsTheAnswer btw are you a politics/international relations student by any chance?

No

 

[Futurist]

@IslamIsTheAnswer btw are you a politics/international relations student by any chance?

No, he just chats made up shit half of the time

 

[TheAnswer]

What I said wasn't factually wrong at all though. I meant from a credibility standpoint, the fundamental problem in Syria is there isn't a sizeable pro-western rebel force on the ground that controls vast swathes of Syrian territory. The only reliable and effective partners for the west in that arena are the Kurds. That is the facts. Further complicating matters is that a lot of theses rebel factions are actually sectarian in nature and composed of foreign fighters. They fight amongst themselves just as much as they with pro-government forces. So yes, while regime change may have been a military option before like you point out, it isn't a serious option being considered now as all credible observers have indicated that Assad is actually winning the ground war at present time.

Ok, well on this point we agree. There is currently no attempt to remove Assad from power, and he has no credible or viable foes left in Syria.

Assad's victory is the victory of Iran and Russia, and a slap in the face to the U.S which originally sought to have him removed, but failed to muster up any foes to defeat him and now wants to retreat from the Middle East.

Can you explain how this situation supports your earlier assertion that Iran and Russia were weakened in the Middle East, and that the U.S was controlling the region through proxy groups? If anything, it goes to show how increasingly irrelevant the U.S is in the Middle East, and by extension the weakness of the UAE/Saudi Arabia which are client states of the U.S.

 

[Cumar]

Ok, well on this point we agree. There is currently no attempt to remove Assad from power, and he has no credible or viable foes left in Syria.

Assad's victory is the victory of Iran and Russia, and a slap in the face to the U.S which originally sought to have him removed, but failed to muster up any foes to defeat him and now wants to retreat from the Middle East.

Can you explain how this situation supports your earlier assertion that Iran and Russia were weakened in the Middle East, and that the U.S was controlling the region through proxy groups? If anything, it goes to show how increasingly irrelevant the U.S is in the Middle East, and by extension the weakness of the UAE/Saudi Arabia which are client states of the U.S.

To be perfectly honest with you, I think the low point in the foreign policy for the US was the Obama administration. We have to remember the appetite for large-scale ground intervention and long term military commitment in the Middle East is virtually non-existent. You raised this point earlier and I agree. My point is that Trump is essentially employing a hard power foreign policy with regards to Syria, and by extension Iran and Russia. A hard power foreign policy comes into play when foreign actors believe that your threats are credible. The "slap on the wrist" may just be that, a "slap on the wrist," but if Assad believes the threat to be credible he will absolutely think twice about using chemical weapons next time which will necessarily deter chemical weapons use. Essentially, from this I conclude that by extension a more activist US foreign policy in the middle east (Relative to the Obama admin) emboldens its allies, and weakens its enemies.

 

[TheAnswer]

To be perfectly honest with you, I think the low point in the foreign policy for the US was the Obama administration. We have to remember the appetite for large-scale ground intervention and long term military commitment in the Middle East is virtually non-existent. You raised this point earlier and I agree. My point is that Trump is essentially employing a hard power foreign policy with regards to Syria, and by extension Iran and Russia. A hard power foreign policy comes into play when foreign actors believe that your threats are credible. The "slap on the wrist" may just be that, a "slap on the wrist," but if Assad believes the threat to be credible he will absolutely think twice about using chemical weapons next time which will necessarily deter chemical weapons use. Essentially, from this I conclude that by extension a more activist US foreign policy in the middle east (Relative to the Obama admin) emboldens its allies, and weakens its enemies.

Launching a handful of missiles while loudly proclaiming your desire to withdraw from the region and leave it to its own devices is hardly an expression of a "hard power foreign policy" bro. Nor is it a good way to boost ally morale. If anything, it weakens U.S allies further by showing that the U.S will do little more than a symbolic hand-slap for even the most egregious violation of international norms by Assad.

I think you are reading too much into Trump's missle strikes. Rather than intimidating Assad, they are probably working to make him stronger. Read: https://www.ft.com/content/3c53290c...egmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

 

[Wei]

Why would Assad use chemical weapons on his own people when he is winning the war? Shit makes no sense at all. The global world order is moving from west to east, I wouldn't mind being allies with China,Russia,Turkey,Iran,Pakistan, and Nirth Korea.

 

[Iceman88]

Assad is only winning the war because of outside intervention from the Russians and Iranians. But the weakness of The Sunni countries has also been shown, as they can't help their allies as they do not have any military know how ,even though they do seem to spend god knows how many billions on state of the art military hardware ( I think it's modern day extortion racket run by the west tbh). I do think Somalia has chosen wisely to align itself with Turkey and Qatar, as the Saudis and the emiratis have done f*ck all for Somalia. f*ck Iran tho.

 

[Bohol]

Assad is only winning the war because of outside intervention from the Russians and Iranians. But the weakness of The Sunni countries has also been shown, as they can't help their allies as they do not have any military know how ,even though they do seem to spend god knows how many billions on state of the art military hardware ( I think it's modern day extortion racket run by the west tbh). I do think Somalia has chosen wisely to align itself with Turkey and Qatar, as the Saudis and the emiratis have done f*ck all for Somalia. f*ck Iran tho.

Bingo.

 

[Bohol]

Why would Assad use chemical weapons on his own people when he is winning the war? Shit makes no sense at all. The global world order is moving from west to east, I wouldn't mind being allies with China,Russia,Turkey,Iran,Pakistan, and Nirth Korea.

It is a false flag.

 

[CangeeroBear]

Good debates guys!

 

[Karbashhhh]

These arabs are going to make up and either somaliland or somalia will have egg on their face. I place my bets on Qatar giving in over the rest of the gulf states.