In regard to humanities failure to do its duty in allowing Syrian civilians in Idlib province to perish as a result of the Syrian Army offensive in Idlib good American people have a defense our President is a despicable egomaniac there is nothing we can do to get our country to act responsibly were not dealing with a person in the Presidency that has a reliable conscience. But the good people of Europe you have no moral defense ideally your countries should be creating a peace keeping mission to create a militarized separation zone in the upper section of Idlib province between the Syrian Army and the rebels to avert the humanitarian crisis that is ongoing and will get worse for that is your back yard and the refugees created by this abandonment of civilians will flee to Europe thus hurting your people with the negative economic consequences that will unfold from this scenario. But the world need not ask you Europeans to do the ideal we only ask you to do the bare minimum that virtue calls for which is responsibly help the Turkish people with this humanitarian mission they are trying to accomplish and are prepared to do the heavy lifting on by being prepared to use their army to create this militarized separation zone. Minimum virtue calls for European countries to pay at least seventy-five percent of the cost the Turkish people will incur to expand their Army and create this zone and maintain this Zone; remember this zone to protect this enclave in Idlib only will be like one hundred and fifty miles in length. Minimum virtue calls for the European countries to see that the Turkish Army has the manpads or stinger missiles or whatever the current lingo is so the Turkish Army can stop the Syrian and Russian Air forces from providing close air support to the Syrian Army and their allies forces attacking in Idlib. Minimum virtue calls for the European countries to see that the Turkish forces have the artillery guns and shells and the javelin anti-tank weapons needed to do the job. Again, this is a relatively small distance a hundred and fifty miles or so that the Turkish Army has to advance and hold it isn't like the Europeans are asked to fund a major war it protection of an enclave. Turkey is a member of the major European defense alliance Nato so it isn't like the Europeans are being asked to arm a country they can foresee being at war with in the future. This is another reason Europe should help Turkey the 3.7 million Syrian refugees that have fled into Turkey plus the million plus additional refugees that could readily result from the Syrian Army attack in Idlib pose a national security threat to Turkey they would to any country, Nato countries have a duty to come the aid of a fellow Nato country under an external national security threat! This is the deal that Turkey and the European countries should work out. The Syrian rebels and Islamist groups in Idlib have to agree the war is over for them there will be no more offensive attacks against the Syrian Army you guys lost you cannot successfully fight Assad and all his allies there needs to be a " one-hundred percent stable" defense line in Idlib to protect all the Syrian civilians in free Syria and so there needs to be this agreement from all the fighting groups in Idlib these fighters should be promised that turkey and Europe will work for an amnesty agreement for all these fighters. Further, the Syrian rebels need to let the Syrian army have this key transit town Saraqib which connects Aleppo to Damascus and Aleppo to Latakia otherwise there will continue to be a big obstacle to peace in this area. The Turkish government has to agree to close their border with Greece to stop the refugee exodus which will head to Europe the harm to sovereignty needs to stop. Both Europe and Turkey need to recognize that what has happened in Syria is massive historic ethnic cleansing that should be equated with what happened in the Balkans in the latter part of the twentieth century and in this situation the people being ethnically cleansed are Syrian Sunnis probably the number rivals six million. What all these countries have to agree on is that they either through the United Nations or countries of the willing they need to mount a military campaign to create safe zones in the border areas of Syria including the whole northern part of Syria down to the Euphrates and resettle the Syrian refugees there with arrangement made for these people's permanent security. Everyone has to get serious and recognize the world cannot let the two million people in Idlib be abused and killed on a massive scale, countries connected here have to step up and stabilize and secure this situation, turning one's head away is not acceptable!
I thought Europe was welcoming the refugees with open arms? Surely you don't think their presence in Europe is a ... detriment to those countries, do you? Also, LOL at the ideas that Europeans would adhere to anything resembling a "minimum virtue" and that it requires them to shovel money to Turkey's military after they've spent decades mooching off the protection the US military provides them without paying a dime for it. Turkey already has MANPADs, and F-16's, and they'd have F-35s right now too if they hadn't stubbornly and foolishly insisted on buying that Russian garbage air defense system which is apparently incapable of protecting their soldiers on the ground. Lastly, just because Turkey is currently a nominal NATO member doesn't mean that I, or various Europeans, can't foresee possibilities that end with them being at war with other members of NATO. It's a real possibility.
Arabs have 22 Large countries .. Why should Europe help the Syrians ??? Where are their blood brothers and sisters ??
RE: Europe It's a Scandal If You Don't Help Turkey Help Syrian Civilians! ⁜→ MGB ROADSTER, et al, There are multiple levels of interest in the conflict currently extending across Syria. But the vast majority of the Arab League (≈ 22 countries), the bulk of which stretches across to the south and west → along lines that bounding the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the southern rim of the Mediterranean Sea (the North African Coast) places the Arab League outside the influence of the conflict. (COMMENT) Now we could talk about the general lack of resources of the Arab League member nations, and we could talk about the difficulty in making that extended reach to the far north and east region of the Mediterranean and make a very logical argument for the overall lack of a strong participation in the conflict, but that would just be a cosmetic discussion. But the real reason for the lack of participation is that a majority of the Arab League cannot see how they will reap any reward for the investment they would make. They are asking themselves, what do they get out of it? What will their return on their investment be? If the are not impressed by an expectation of an economic, military, political or commercial gain; they are not playing. That is just the way they are. This is especially true in the shadow of what they may risk in the gamble to intervene. Remember, no a single one of those 22 Arab League countries rank above Israel in terms of Human Development. That tells you something about the way in which they approach a risk 'vs' gain scenario. Most Respectfully, R
The Arab countries will only provide money to Arab gangs outside of their own borders, such as the Hezbollah and the ersatz self-proclaimed 'palestinians' who serve a foreign policy utilizing proxies. Their histories of numerous defeats leaves them mostly unenthusiastic about taking on even modestly armed groups; as a bandit culture they much prefer butchering and torturing unarmed civilians and looting rampages than anything resembling real warfare. the West enables this for various reasons, but that will come to end soon, with the oil running out and the only strategic interest is the Canal and the Horn of Africa and Indian Coast region. Russia's interests have always been to control Turkey, and currently their only Med base is in Syria, and a very vulnerable base at that. The U.S. can do without Turkey, but Europe has always been nervous about Russian control of the straits and the Black Sea. The American interests diminish with every barrel of oil sucked out of the ground there, but Europe's strategic position will always be a concern for them. Russians will always be expansionist; they always have been, and leopards don't change their spots just because they learn some new ideological slogans as they did when they went Communist, they're the same as they have always been. With the oil is gone, Europe will suddenly find that Israel is their New Best Friend Forever as they no longer have a reason to appease Islamist dictatorships, and they need a stable ally close to the Suez Canal that isn't an Arab disaster of a country..
It's just my opinion, of course, but soon the moderates will have to become much more active are face either Islamic degeneracy or right wing nutjobbery as 'choices', and I see signs the moderates are stirring and getting restive, not liking either of those options; we should see a rise of 'radical moderates' soon, especially with the decline of Merkel and the ongoing demise of the EU. Without oil money, Islam runs out of cash to operate extortion rackets. AS for the U.S., it will be Third World country in a decade or so, by 2022 if Democrats win majorities and the White House, and will no longer be supporting allies overseas. If I were Israel I would be looking around to countries like Brazil and some of the African countries and maybe India for allies and trading partners. They already have some friends in Africa, from what I've read, due to their sea water desalinization plants. 'Pax Americana' is dead, and with it global economic stability and relative 'peace'. Time to look at the best possible re-alignments for all concerned.
