http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/r...ikes-isis/
Thoughts?
You can't really blame the Russians for wanting to help out there guy Assad by bombing the supposedly "moderate" rebel factions in Syria along with ISIS. In order for this plan to succeed, and for ISIS to be driven out of Syria, there needs to be military cooperation between the US and Russia. It's the only way.
The Kremlin has already made claims that Russian involvement is the only legitimate military involvement in Syria at the behest of the legitimate government of Assad. The anti aircraft equipment and air to air missiles being installed by the Russian Federation orange for an Isis Air Force that does not exist. So far the extent of Russian cooperation is to tell us for Sis stay the heck out of Syria if you know what's good for you.
This is an easy one, Putin has big giant Russian balls and Obama doesnt have any.
In the obivious weakness and dislike for his own Country, (i.e. Obama), Putin has forced his will over the international community with less resitance from the former Giant in the room reduced to a mouse squeek (USA)
This strikes me as an extremely dangerous situation. Russia is bombing a US ally. If the US responds directly, we are in a shooting war with Russia.
On the other hand, this incident does raise a couple of questions.
1) Why does the US have the right to go around exerting our will in other countries, and Russia doesn't have the same right?
2) If we continue to undermine dictatorships in the middle east, as we did with Saddam Hussein, are we going to be faced with something far worse (ISIS)? Say what you want about Saddam Hussein, at least he kept things under control. Can we say the same about Assad?
Like I said in the other thread, fine let Russia deal with ISIS and the Jihad at their doorstep. pack and go home, there is literally no reason for us to be involved anymore.
We've made enough of a mess in the middle east, we should just stop and walk away. Let Russia spend a trillion dollars, thousand of lives and a decade trying to conquer the savages.
Quote:This strikes me as an extremely dangerous situation. Russia is bombing a US ally. If the US responds directly, we are in a shooting war with Russia.
On the other hand, this incident does raise a couple of questions.
1) Why does the US have the right to go around exerting our will in other countries, and Russia doesn't have the same right?
2) If we continue to undermine dictatorships in the middle east, as we did with Saddam Hussein, are we going to be faced with something far worse (ISIS)? Say what you want about Saddam Hussein, at least he kept things under control. Can we say the same about Assad?
A bigger question would be "Why are we allied with terror groups in Syria?"
I agree with Eric. Let Russia take control of the situation. We started this mess by arming terrorists in Syria and we obviously have lost control. So the Russians are not bombing ISIS targets. So what? They are almost interchangeable, and the non-ISIS groups are typically backed by other terror groups like Al Qaeda or Muslim Brotherhood. The only reason the US is upset that Russia is bombing non-ISIS terrorists is because these terrorists we're supported by the US. The fact they try and manipulate the media and the mass into believing they are "civilians" to garner sympathy is hogwash. This administrations handling of the middle-east is so terribly bad. Such a joke.
Quote:http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/r...ikes-isis/
Thoughts?
You can't really blame the Russians for wanting to help out there guy Assad by bombing the supposedly "moderate" rebel factions in Syria along with ISIS. In order for this plan to succeed, and for ISIS to be driven out of Syria, there needs to be military cooperation between the US and Russia. It's the only way.
The US is sending arms and money to the rebels fighting Assad. That includes both al Qaeda and ISIS fighters who are being backed by the Obama regime. Let that sink in. Russia is defending the duly established leader in Syria, and their ally. The fact that he's a complete dirtbag is irrelevant. As Putin said over the weekend in an interview, if the US wants regime change in Syria, all they're focused on IS the regime change and not what comes next. It's the same short sighted approach that created chaos in Egypt and Libya among other places.
It's a shame when the Russian leader is more logical about this than the president of the United States.
It will be a grand day for us all when Russia, Syria, and Iran are united into a new anti-America, anti-Israel force in the Middle East.
Grand I tells ya.
Grand.
Quote:The US is sending arms and money to the rebels fighting Assad. That includes both al Qaeda and ISIS fighters who are being backed by the Obama regime. Let that sink in. Russia is defending the duly established leader in Syria, and their ally. The fact that he's a complete dirtbag is irrelevant. As Putin said over the weekend in an interview, if the US wants regime change in Syria, all they're focused on IS the regime change and not what comes next. It's the same short sighted approach that created chaos in Egypt and Libya among other places.
It's a shame when the Russian leader is more logical about this than the president of the United States.
Exactly.
Very cagey move by Putin if you think of the long term implications. Putin has positioned Russia to be the power broker in the middle east for years to come.
Ten years, fifteen years and Putin will hold sway over a large portion of the worlds oil supply.
Putin / Russia play be different rules. They do not think twice about collateral damage. They care not what the "press" says about how they conduct war.
They conduct war to win in the most effective and quickest fashion possible.
Going to be a VERY large problem for years to come for the US.
This is all due to the POTUS and SOS Kerry believing that you can talk, preach and lecture rather than a real foreign policy that projects strength and stability.
Could get ugly. Could put ISIS on the run. As far as Assad goes, the overthrowing of leaders in volatile areas hasnt improved the area imo. Iraq, Libya, Egypt are more sensitive areas.
As everyone blames POTUS and SOS, I wonder what the joint chiefs of staff have recommended? These air strikes are a band aid on an open wound. Sadly, boots on the ground may be necessary and perhaps Putin has forgotten Afghanistan and sends in his Spetsnaz. The American people are tired of war..wars that we dont play to win. Maybe those who havent had bullets zing by while not being allowed to return fire are all gung ho, and play arm chair general, but its not simple and if it was somewhere in the jungles of Africa, no one would give a flip.
It'll be another long drawn out quagmire, unless they go in and quit cat footing around.
Terrorism is a worldwide problem, maybe the powers that be can put aside differences for just a while ( yes, and sleep with one eye open ) and tear these clowns a new one.
For now, speculations and opinions are fine, albeit pre mature. Lets see what plays out. Syria is Russias only ally in the region; all I can say is ..what took them so long. Maybe its was..hey let the Americans spend their resources while we watch. But with zero results, Putin comes in and says..let me show you how its done. Or so he may think.
Destroying an enemy is one thing. An ideal is another.
It wont end next year so lets see what Trump would do...maybe build a beeeyooteeful wall around the area.
Obama certainly had no military credentials...what candidate running next year has any? Since many blame the prez, I'd like to know..it may sway a vote
Quote:Could get ugly. Could put ISIS on the run. As far as Assad goes, the overthrowing of leaders in volatile areas hasnt improved the area imo. Iraq, Libya, Egypt are more sensitive areas.
As everyone blames POTUS and SOS, I wonder what the joint chiefs of staff have recommended? These air strikes are a band aid on an open wound. Sadly, boots on the ground may be necessary and perhaps Putin has forgotten Afghanistan and sends in his Spetsnaz. The American people are tired of war..wars that we dont play to win. Maybe those who havent had bullets zing by while not being allowed to return fire are all gung ho, and play arm chair general, but its not simple and if it was somewhere in the jungles of Africa, no one would give a flip.
It'll be another long drawn out quagmire, unless they go in and quit cat footing around.
Terrorism is a worldwide problem, maybe the powers that be can put aside differences for just a while ( yes, and sleep with one eye open ) and tear these clowns a new one.
For now, speculations and opinions are fine, albeit pre mature. Lets see what plays out. Syria is Russias only ally in the region; all I can say is ..what took them so long. Maybe its was..hey let the Americans spend their resources while we watch. But with zero results, Putin comes in and says..let me show you how its done. Or so he may think.
Destroying an enemy is one thing. An ideal is another.
It wont end next year so lets see what Trump would do...maybe build a beeeyooteeful wall around the area.
Obama certainly had no military credentials...what candidate running next year has any? Since many blame the prez, I'd like to know..it may sway a vote
Personally, I think we need to go back to the basics. Why are we there in the first place? Start with that, then decide what our goals are, and then decide on a plan to reach those goals. But for the last two administrations, I don't think the policymakers have really thought through what is going to come out of all this mucking around in the middle east. It makes you long for the good old days when we had Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Assad. At least they kept things under control.
Quote:The US is sending arms and money to the rebels fighting Assad. That includes both al Qaeda and ISIS fighters who are being backed by the Obama regime. Let that sink in. Russia is defending the duly established leader in Syria, and their ally. The fact that he's a complete dirtbag is irrelevant. As Putin said over the weekend in an interview, if the US wants regime change in Syria, all they're focused on IS the regime change and not what comes next. It's the same short sighted approach that created chaos in Egypt and Libya among other places.
It's a shame when the Russian leader is more logical about this than the president of the United States.
Bingo!
This entire policy of arming and training Arabs to fight other Arabs is only going to keep biting us in the rear end. Haven't we learned our lesson for like the umpteenth time?
Quote:Personally, I think we need to go back to the basics. Why are we there in the first place? Start with that, then decide what our goals are, and then decide on a plan to reach those goals. But for the last two administrations, I don't think the policymakers have really thought through what is going to come out of all this mucking around in the middle east. It makes you long for the good old days when we had Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Assad. At least they kept things under control.
Agreed. Why were we there in the first place? Umm....wasn't it because Iraq was responsible for 9/11?
I do remember.." We got him" .... Mission Accomplished.
So then, if that's the case, why indeed are we there?
But many would argue, why were we there to begin with?
Quote:Bingo!
This entire policy of arming and training Arabs to fight other Arabs is only going to keep biting us in the rear end. Haven't we learned our lesson for like the umpteenth time?
Yep, our policy should be to colonize the entire region.
In 2008:
Iraq was stable and held two successful elections.
Syria was stable and Russia was not basing troops there.
Libya was stable and Gaddafi was cooperating with the US on terrorism.
There was no migrant crisis.
Iran was not the power broker in the region.
I remember a couple of things also:
POTUS Obama calling ISIS the "JV team in Lakers uniforms" yeah , big joke now.
POTUS Obama drawing a red line in the sand and calling for regime change in Syria.
SOS Kerry claiming we would strike Syria. But just a small "pin prick" strike. What a freaking joke that guy is.
POTUS Obama and SOS Clinton decided Gaddafi had to go and now Libya is a hot mess.
SOS Clinton announced the "Russian reset " . Not working out so well now.
We can go on and on but the fact remains that Obama owns a LARGE part of the current middle east mess.
Quote:It will be a grand day for us all when Russia, Syria, and Iran are united into a new anti-America, anti-Israel force in the Middle East.
Grand I tells ya.
Grand.
At least you'll finally have a use for all that military hardware you bought instead of maintaining your infrastructure.
Quote:Very cagey move by Putin if you think of the long term implications. Putin has positioned Russia to be the power broker in the middle east for years to come.
Ten years, fifteen years and Putin will hold sway over a large portion of the worlds oil supply.
My question for Putin would be, why would anyone want to be "the power broker in the Middle East?" That's like trying to hold a porcupine.
Secondly, what is the value of "holding sway over a large portion of the world's oil supply?" We can already pump enough oil in the United States to be completely energy independent. So why should we be worried about Putin controlling more oil (as if that were even possible)?
Marty,
The Russians run things a little differently then the US. The Russians have no problem wiping out a whole town or region of it serves their purpose. They play hardball and that is about the only thing most of the middle east understands. The Russian are also okay with civil wars and unrest as long as it does not effect their interests.
Before anyone brings up Afghanistan let me be clear that the Soviets only left because of the massive investment by the US in arms and training for the Afghans fighting the Soviets.
Holding sway over a large portion of the worlds oil supply is Russia's goal, I believe. It is strictly a financial move and a power play by Putin.
We should care because our oil prices and petroleum prices in general will skyrocket. The worlds oil market is one market. What happens in one part of the world can and usually does effect the market world wide.
Here is an interesting discussion about the Russian involvement in Syria:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...egy-213213
The article has a lot of experts weighing in with widely different opinions.
Here is one that, in my opinion, has to be considered:
"Moscow simply cannot deploy the kind of forces to Syria that could meaningfully change the arithmetic of the war and save the regime. It also means the Russians are now vulnerable: when something goes wrong, as always will in war, they will face the terrible choice of pulling back and looking weak or doubling down and getting sucked deeper and deeper into this bloody vortex of factionalism, repression, jihad and revolution."
And this:
"People around the world give Putin way too much credit as a master strategist. He’s an improviser and an opportunist of the highest order. It’s true that he’s trying to fill some of the vacuum in the Middle East and Syria as the United States scales back our military involvement in the region. At the same time, I doubt very much that Putin is thinking two or three moves ahead. The war in Syria is about to get a lot worse and he’s plunging Russia right into the middle of it. It’s also only a matter of time before we see surge of jihadist activity targeting Russians, both inside Syria and, I fear, on the streets of Moscow. Russia’s move is going to embolden the Assad regime and motivate the forces of global jihadism."