Why they are still fighting?

This is the current status of Syria. Green in Al-qaeda, Black ISIS, Blue Israel, Red Syrian, dark green Rebels and Turkey and yellow Kurds.

At the start of game it was only rebels, now it is a mess.

Consider it is 1862, what if in US civil war England decided to attack from the north or Mexico from south. If you are on the weak side you would try to ally with foreign just to win? Or you would change the direction of your guns to defend your country?

I accept that it is not a fair comparison. In Syria the amount of foreign pressure and funding for war is huge. However, I don't understand the reason the real rebels AKA free Syrian army is still continuing to fight.

For sick bantz innit

PNAC

>Blue Israel
Isn't that just the Golan Heights? they've controlled that since 1967

Fourth generation warfare.

It is common in middle east to consider extraordinary powers for any western power. However, from outside it seem that they want to be played with.

The leader are corrupted. Real people are just ignorant.

That is another interesting factor. Rebels, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, never made any real attempt to attack Israeli controlled area.

They just love easy targets.

And what all these countries want in a country with no precious resources or any strategic importance?

Is it a now a war game playground for world militants?

Because like most other Arab mandates it's a clusterfuck of different ethnic groups, religious groups and tribal factions that are being funded from different sides to try become the rules but really all they need is one supreme dictator to keep them all together.

But who am I to complain since we are gaining new territory thanks to our arab/turkmen friends while this draws away attention from our k*rdish "removal plan".

Assad protects his country, US and allies sponsor terrorists which means Assad has to keep on fighting terrorists.

American foreign policy demands it, they must unseat Russian aligned Assad. Should be interesting when Trump gets the chair though
Gib clay

It is an ideological war, and a war of projecting power. If the US backed rebels win out, it will make Russia look weak. If the Russian backed Syrian gov't win out, the US will look weak. If the Kurds win out, Turkey will be pissed and have a shitty next door neighbor who leaves paper bags filled with dog poop on fire in front of their house, and if ISIS wins out we are stuck with the international equivalent of a splinter in our thumb for another 5 or so years.

This

They were going to attack a soccer game just last week until they got MOSSADED.COM

That is true. The people are fragmented.
I think the same could be said about Palestinian-Israeli problem.

>American foreign policy demands it
Lol, not anymore. Trump does not give a fuck about letting Assad win. He doesnt have to swallow his pride and admit he was wrong like Obama and Hilldog

>If the US backed rebels win out
ha! nice joke user!

>he still thinks trump won't be an empty figurehead who is planning on spending most of his time as POTUS in trump tower watching TV as Pence and his neocon christfag buddies run the show

I feel bad for you son.

so basically W. Bush 2.0

One good change would be to redefine US-Russian relationship. If they stop playing chess in middle east the mess could be controllable.

Now it is only empowering a serial killer's type of ideology. Nobody is winning.

Just be happy Iran hasn't been invaded yet or you would have the biggest ethnical clusterfuck of the century with people trying to grab clay all over the place.

But then again, we get to liberate our homies in South Azerbaijan and finally build that Baku-Turkey pipeline.

The problem is this conflict between two nuclear powers is prisoner's dilemma. And one where peace is not very rewarding. If one side unilaterally says they're going to be isolationist, that's a huge win for the other side, as they can expand their sphere of influence with no opposition.

>appoints bolton
heh

Light Green is all rebels, excluding Kurds and Isis. Dark Green is just Turkey

Well, this is hard to happen in Iran. Most of middle east borders drawn by Lawrence in early 20 century. Iran's have been there for a long time. Stability in Iran is fixed by cultural and national bonds. It is similar to lots of ancient countries, you can finds lots of ethnicities but general they are more connected to each other than newly founded countries.

Separation of Azerbaijan is more like a joke. Iran's supreme leader and lots of high officials and powerful businessmen are from there, why separate when you are literally ruling the whole country?

Al-nusra is Al Qaeda type of rebels.

>islamic marxism
death would be more merciful

...

From bitter lake by Adam Curtis

>but general they are more connected to each other than newly founded countries
Then explain the recent attacks against IRGC members by Baloch nationalists or the Arabs starting camel shit in the south while k*rds have always been doing shit since the Shah time and are gonna be even more active now that they are gonna get their very own nation in Iraq/Syria to do driveby attacks from.
>Separation of Azerbaijan is more like a joke.
It wasn't a joke back in the 40's when they had their own state the persians forcefully took back.

And the so called Supreme leader might aswell be a Arab since he claims direct descent from Muhammad.

>10, Bahrain
>in the Great Lakes region

>but this was a fantasy
[Drive soundtrack intensifies]

>Then explain the recent attacks against ...
Not serious, mostly foreign funded with low local support. Although I accept that there are problems. But is it not more serious than turkey's problem with Kurds or Russian's in Chechen. It is manageable.
>It wasn't a joke back in the 40's..
Well, that was soviet invasion. But it failed just after russian troops left. It lasted only one year.

But it destabilized

>But is it not more serious than turkey's problem with K*rds
It will be if they don't keep them in check.

They might be kissing your ass now but once their made-up disneyland nation is formed you are gonna see alot more attacks than the average village raids to kill 1-2 persian border guards every month. Especially when both the US/EU is supplying them with weapons now.
They are worse than Arabs because they actually managed to wipe out our Armenians while giving us the blame and currently wiping out the Assyrians in Iraq/Syria while no one even bothers to acknowledge it. All while breeding like rats and playing the victim card whenever they bomb our civilians or attack a base.

Yeah, I know. The map doesn't make a difference between them and the other rebel groups

Civil wars are always a mess.

I couldn't agree more. People immigrate to US and just after one year of their citizenship they call themselve American. But in these three countries they have been citizen and part of country for more than 1000 years and still they think they are different.

Unfortunately US has been constantly choosing wrong allies recently.

...

It is entirely possible. They've pulled it off in the past. Now, whether or not that will be good is something else altogether, but I imagine that your post was a shitpost because you disagree with US interventionism ideologically.
It is hard to bring the two at a conference table, especially considering the core conflicts at even the basic levels of society, such as the LGBT rights and other social issues.

Not only that, but you have both countries fearing that if they let up pressure on their opponent, they would use that to their advantage and propagate their own form of government and values outside of their borders.

Also,

>Expecting sand gypsies to maintain states.
When haven't there been refugees fleeing about in the region?