Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockstar
What does it mean to win? Most here swallowed the pill when told western powers intervened to bring "freedom and democracy" to the middle east. If we base our idea of a win on that. IF that was the real objective then yes, we can say with all certainty the west lost. But I dont think its about winning the hearts and minds or setting anyone free from tyranny.
Western powers win when we prevent any nation over there from becoming the victor. We win when we bring stalemate and keep the region destabilized. We win when we have them focused and fighting each other instead of the West. IMO the West understands the middle east very well and plays them like a fiddle.
I think whats going on over there now doesn't have squat to do with bringing freedom and democracey to Syria. Nothing to do with moderate or radical Islam and terrorists, those are just isolated storms in a tea cup. IMO the war being fought is between Russia and NATO battling over spheres of influence. Russia is interested in keeping Assad in power somthey get a piece of the action and a say in regional policy. The west is interested in restricting Russia's influence in the region, which means ousting Assad under the guise of freedom and democracy.
|
While I too do not buy that freedom&democracy strawman claim, I think you underestimate the importance of the Shia-Sunni conflict for this war. At minimum it ius a relgious proxy war already.
And then ther eis Turkey, which is noit automatically to be counted as a Western ally, it is not, but by now stands for its own ambitions for regional dominance (last but not least over both Iran and Saudi Arabia). The Russians have picked their sides, against Tuzrkey, for Assad, witzh the Shia Persians (Iran). The West flits about (="
irrlichtert herum") in search of a clue.