Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
That's... entertaining, given your own habit of simply declaring that early American intervention was "the right thing"...
Since you obviously have never carefully read even one posts of mine: mind pointing at the place where I have said anything of this kind?

Nobody told me that, neither have I said that. You have a way of putting words into other people's mouths, and assuming opinions that aren't there.
That's a very precise explanation for what you're doing with my posts, and that all the time, thanks.

Seems you don't like the same being done to you?

Yes, that's why "arranging" a large scale truce to serve our strategic purpose seems so far outside the realm of credibility.
Oh, really?

Certainly the rise of ISIS has been very convenient for Iran and for Assad, and certainly they've taken full advantage of the opportunity. That doesn't necessarily mean they created ISIS to serve their own purposes: it could just as easily mean that they simply took advantage of events as they emerged.
...which is a well-formulated excuse for 'at best the regime was negligent, and at worst they facilitated the rise of the Daesh'...

Is there any evidence that the resistance is willing to compromise...
Do I really need to find you all of their corresponding statements?

...and do we have any viable and realistic way to disunify Assad's forces?
Nope: the US is completely powerless in this regards - as it is in all other similar regards... Makes one wonder who to hell came to the idea to call the US a 'superpower'...

That's been the problem from the start, no? If Assad falls, that leaves a vacuum with an infinitude of factions fighting to fill it.
What kind of evidence can you provide in support of this speculation?

Is it realistically possible to provide effective CAS to ground forces in Kobane or elsewhere without properly trained and equipped forces on the ground communicating with the air forces?
Ever heard of something named 'INTERDICTION'?

Rumour has it that this should've been a part of some 'air-land-battle' concept of the US military...

Half the Daesh is presently converging on the Kobane, and nobody is attacking all of their columns moving in territory where there is nobody else but the Daesh to find.

Meanwhile, they're assaulting YPG/FSyA positions 1 kilometre outside the town...

If you assume that the purpose of the exercise is to degrade and destroy ISIS, it makes no sense. If the purpose of the exercise is to put on a show of "doing something about ISIS" for domestic consumption...

If an action seems supremely irrational it's often because the purpose we assume is not the actual purpose of the action.
Who said the action is 'supremely irrational' (except you)?

If one doesn't destroy these refineries, one is not going to get contract to rebuild them. That's 'perfectly rational'.

The problem is that if the declared purpose of this operation is 'destroying the ISIS', then why destroying the Syrian infra-structure? If some princes there want 'show', they can keep on flying air shows - or crashing F-15s against sand dunes while flying supersonic at minimal altitudes for fun...