Most of it tbh. That territory is legally part of Iraq, there is no 'fair and square' about it. You think by creating a new state the threat to the Kurdish people from ISIS will suddenly disappear? If you do then you're incredibly naïve. Assad has committed war crimes on more than one occasion. You have extremely low standards if you think he's anything other than a vile human being.
So you're also saying that Israel should be returned to Palestine then considering it was originally theirs before it was taken from them and given to the Jews after WW2.
I'm not saying the threat of ISIS will suddenly dissapear, it's that they've always been promised a land, that promised land was originally also part region of Iraq and surrounding countries.
For the amount they've done in those areas I think they atleast deserve their fair share for the war they've fought.
ISIS will not dissapear, but it will do the same thing as it did that created ISIS, rebel groups were given equipment by the US because they wanted the groups to fight it out themselves.
These rebel groups either lost really quickly or joined up with ISIS themselves, basically granting them the equipment.
Half of the weak Iraqi army abandoned their positions when they weren't even losing a battle and thus suddenly the divisions of ISIS had modern assault rifles and heavy equipment including vehicles like Humvees, it's ridicilous how much instability the US has created in those areas.
Rebel groups are still around there and they're still fighting, there was fighting between the FSA, SAA, YPG, PKK, ISIS, Turkish Army, and other unnamed rebel groups in MULTIPLE cities at the same time. It's clear that a central government has to be formed to kinda stabilize it atleast a tad because with the current situation you'd have infighting for the upcoming hundred years.
That goes about both Iraq and Syria, there's shittons of peshmerga and other Kurdish divisions fighting rebels in all of those areas.
Which war crimes has Assad actually commited though, alot of it has been debunked.
Some reports for example say that Assad already turned his chemical weapons in around 2012-2013.
But then there's a so called chemical attack a few years later in Syria?
But then also there's multiple media saying, Assad did it and there's other media saying the rebels did it with proof even linking it to them?
Who's to believe according to you then? I guess you'd say the rebels are to be trusted with their information.
This is the information the West wants you to have in your mind, you're manipulated to hate anything your state opposes.
That's why I lost pretty much any trust I had in Trump when he decided to bomb Syria.
You can't deny there's always been VERY shady shit going on with the US and the middle-east, setting up puppet governments and destabelizing the regions overall with false reports and falsified decisions to start a war, it's happened to Iran, Iraq, Syria and a few more.
Starting a revolution in a country is easy if you appoint someone like they did in Iraq many years ago, someone who was extremely out of touch with the population whilst half of the population still supported Hussein's generals.
They could've picked someone to lead the government who actually lived his live in Iraq and was in touch with the population but they chose an outsider..
Which caused another civil war, yeah that's totally normal.
