Morch

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    9,110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,039 Excellent

About Morch

  • Rank
    Desperate Brotherhood Member

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Thailand

Recent Profile Visitors

14,406 profile views
  1. We are talking about Syria, not "other countries" in general. At best, lump in the situation in Iraq as related. There is a difference between totally ignoring some parties' role (such as Assad's regime, Russia, Iran), and saying not all fault lies with the US. Granted, accepting that other parties bear responsibility as well, implies by default that the US role is not unique. Doubt most reasonable people would treat this as "downplaying", but rather as being a more balanced take. Russia did not save Syria from ISIS. Russian operations were not limited to attacking ISIS, even. Russia was there to prop Assad's regime. If it was worried about ISIS, it could have avoided blocking most international efforts to do something about it prior to carrying out its own intervention.
  2. What is it with posters insisting on ignoring Assad's part in the bloodshed? Or Iran? Or Russia? This is not a denial that the US played a part.
  3. There is a difference between lumping all those opposing (as you do in some posts), and differentiating between groups (which you crudely apply on others). Calling them all "rebels", and then using the moniker in different ways is just muddying the waters. I doubt that you can substantiate US policy revolving around the view presented. The same goes for supposed sequence of events touted.
  4. The PRC going on about unilateral actions is too funny.
  5. That's a bully's logic. If the PRC can pressure each of its smaller/weaker neighbors by turn, it gets what it wants. If someone (in the post above, the US) is to consider intervening in any way, there will be a war. I doubt that if the US will sell/supply arms to any country in the region, it will cause a war. Same goes for "support", whatever that means. The PRC will go to war if it will consider war is in its best interests. Can't pin it all on the US, the PRC can make its own decisions. According to some reports, your take on Trump may take a hit. Said reports imply that as part of Trump delegating more authority to the Pentagon, future operations (such as US Navy vessels challenging disputed maritime claims) will not be micro-managed as was the practice during Obama's Term. This is not a comment on the wisdom of this change, if correct. So far the side taking the most actions that can deteriorate things further is the PRC.
  6. Just how far you imagine the PRC's airspace extends? If reporting about the intercept is an over-reaction, isn't the intercept itself an over reaction?
  7. People like Tillerson or Mattis have done a thing or two in their lives, dealt with influential people, presidents and megalomaniacs. They may have thought this was more of the same. Mattis seems to handle Trump somewhat better, though. Or perhaps he's getting more respect not being a fellow businessman but a general. It's not every day that someone gets such job offers, and I think even those that declined didn't do so lightheartedly. There's a great temptation in getting a chance to leave one's mark at these levels. Also, while Trump's character and conduct were no secret, things went downhill on that one since his election victory. Harder to brush aside, ignore, or minimize stuff, relative to his days as a candidate or freshly inaugurated president. And it gets worse by the day. Even without referring the actual issues themselves. Point is that the situation is different compared to when Tillerson accepted the job.
  8. Why is it that you insist on making up the same supposed policies across multiple topics and then pretend to wonder why other posters do not accept them as true? For you imagined scenarios, contrived as they are, you'd have to do better than lumping all of those opposing Assad as "rebels". May want to bear in mind that not all "rebels" are ISIS, Al-Nusra (you're behind the times on the current name) - there are the Kurds, and then there are many smaller localized outfits, with shifting allegiances. Not all hold anti-Western views. You'd also need to address how such an scenario would be possible with Russia's and Iran's presence, while the US downgrades its own. The supposed "conclusion" stems from intentionally faulty presentation of "facts". That you opine "surely", doesn't make US foreign policy. To assess that the US foreign policy in the ME is not a success story, and that changing circumstances and administrations makes things even more messy, does not require adopting your own simplistic imaginary version. We've been through all that on more than one topic. Pretending to start from scratch is just another tool to lay out them talking points.
  9. Same old incoherent nonsense. To remind, the current crisis started with three Islamic zealots opening fire on policeman stationed near the compound's gates. There is not "stolen land" in conjecture with the Temple Mount. It was not designated as part of the Palestinian territory. Other than immediately following the shooting mentioned above, Palestinians were not prevented from praying at the compound. The decision to hold the prayers outside was the Waqf's. Muslim worshipers visiting Mecca face harsher security measures and stricter surveillance. Not only that, but as far as I recall, security is handled by a British firm. The rest of the rant is the usual vehement slogans - if you haven' been paying attention, seems like a solution has been reached after all.
  10. Despite standing denial, conflicts are never one-sided. Confrontation and crisis can be responded to in any number of ways. Ignoring the fact that related Palestinian actions were not necessarily reasonable or contributed much to peaceful resolution of the current episode is a choice. There was no claim that the Palestinians are the occupying force. There was no denial of Israel's military advantage. What is denied, and not routinely not addressed in your posts, is that there is no imperative dictating that the Palestinians have to pick a violent path. For example, rather than immediately engaging in sermons highlighting confrontation, rejection and violence, religious leaders could have calmed things down and do their best to reach an alternative solution. Again, a matter of choice. And despite standing nonsense, this choice is rejected. Not arguing the wisdom of the Israeli government's decision making, but placement of the metal detectors was in now way "collective punishment". Similarly there was nothing said about "appeasement", or helping Netanyahu out of a tough spot - that's just how you choose to formulate things. Whether Palestinian leaders choose confrontation, with the expected toll over exhausting the possible avenues to a peaceful solution is another choice. Seems like the preference is given to confrontation and bloodshed, and that possible attempts to calm things down are painted negatively. For someone repeatedly claiming to be against violence, your standing position is odd, at best.
  11. Quoting from a post made earlier on one of the parallel topics: The crisis was, apparently, resolved due to a parallel related crisis arising between Israel and Jordan. The solutions to both are pretty much a trade off. Israel would remove the metal detectors, and install an advanced system of cctv's instead, while Jordan will drop its demand to disregard diplomatic immunity in the case referred to on this topic: https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/993862-jordanian-man-killed-two-people-wounded-at-israeli-embassy-in-jordan-police/ Other than Netanyahu and his government making bad choices, again, this crisis demonstrated several other standing issues pertaining to ME diplomacy and relations between the various parties: (a) US involvement is still a factor, (b) There is a convergence of interests between Israel and non-religious elements on the Arab side, which can be a basis for cooperation, (c) The Palestinians getting sidelined by Arab countries when it fits.
  12. It would seem that for some, common sense, is something that's expected only of Israel. Palestinian contributing their fair share to aggravating and prolonging the crisis is acceptable, though, and goes without comment. One side's religious nutters and domestic politics are an issue, the other side's aren't even mentioned. The link above tells nothing of how and why an acceptable solution was apparently found, it's just a re-hash of similar articles from the same source - which is by the way, Haaretz, and not the venue linked. The crisis was, apparently, resolved due to a parallel related crisis arising between Israel and Jordan. The solutions to both are pretty much a trade off. Israel would remove the metal detectors, and install an advanced system of cctv's instead, while Jordan will drop its demand to disregard diplomatic immunity in the case referred to on this topic: https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/993862-jordanian-man-killed-two-people-wounded-at-israeli-embassy-in-jordan-police/ Other than Netanyahu and his government making bad choices, again, this crisis demonstrated several other standing issues pertaining to ME diplomacy and relations between the various parties: (a) US involvement is still a factor, (b) There is a convergence of interests between Israel and non-religious elements on the Arab side, which can be a basis for cooperation, (c) The Palestinians getting sidelined by Arab countries when it fits.
  13. Some lie more than others (like Trump and his administration). When they own up to anything, do tell.
  14. Nope, not all. There are examples of politicians and public figures owning up past positions and actions. And anyway, we are in the present, unpleasant as it is. The references are to Trump and his administration.
  15. Changing one's mind comes with owning up previous statements, not deleting them.