What would you do in Syria

[Bengalzona]

(04-13-2017, 05:56 AM)hollodero Wrote: Some thoughts as well. I hate to be the cynic, but it struck me that in a sense Russia actually is a beneficiary of the whole Syria conflict. It brings waves of refugees to Europe, which is by far the biggest talking point for the destructive parties Putin supports. You can't influence elections in a more effective way.

Why would Putin want a solution then? If there were peace in Syria... the meddling gets a lot harder.
Which is why I believe Putin actually wants nothing of that kind to happen. I don't think human life interests that man the tiniest bit. What are Russians doing in Syria anyway. Nothing to ensure an Assad victory or an end to the fighting and killing. Nothing which would bring peace. But avoiding through their presence that anyone else could.

No doubt that Russia has been benefiting from the disorder in Europe caused by the Syrian refugees. But I think that he has played that situation as much as he can. It was starting to wind down before this happened. Also, I don't think that the refugee situation was something that Putin planned. Rather, I suspect it was an situation he saw unfolding and decided to use to his advantage. I believe that he was already trying to position himself to be the "great peacemaker" in Syria. He wants peace in Syria (under a favorable regime to him) for Russia's prestige. It demonstrates that they can solve problems within their sphere of influence where the U.S. could not. This is old Soviet Cold War style thinking, but a lot of what Putin does can be defined that way.

As far as what Russia has been doing against the rebels, they have been bombing the hell out of them. The U.S.-allied rebels, that is. Not so much ISIS. Russia actually has been doing business with ISIS (A Russian refinery in Syria pays ISIS to bring crude oil there for processing and resale. The Russians have an agreement with Assad not to interfere with their deliveries, now that Assad's forces have retaken the refinery.). The Russian air campaign has been very effective and a main reason why Assad's forces have been able to retake all of the major urban areas during the past 2 years. 

Quote:Your optimism is honored, but even if Putin isn't as sinister as I think he is, peace is as far away as ever, the strike didn't do anything stabilizing. The US made itself a referee throwing flags in a civil war, that's about it. I don't want to criticize the move or the US. Just the cynicism that goes with all this was so clear when Spicer talked barrel bombs. Which kill several thousands civilians every year. But no one is throwing a flag there, barrel bombs are "in bounds" and that needed to be clarified. That's the bottom line of the message to Assad, keep on killing, just do it by means we don't deem too despicable.

Putin is sinister. He is probably about as sociopathic as they come. Any effort he makes to appear caring is disingenuous and done purely for publicity and politics. He wants to be perceived as a peacemaker only for political purposes. 

Chemical weapons have been universally deplored since World War I. It is something that just about every nation in the world agrees with (except Assad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Whichever, etc.). It is the only class of weaponry which the world has made an attempt to outlaw. I have heard the argument about "Why do we only ban chemical weapons?" My response is "At least we try to ban them. Isn't that a start?"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Food for thought:

Three crack addicts smokin' a rock under an overpass in Atlanta recently started a fire which is expected to close I-85 northbound down for months.

Meanwhile, 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles later Shayrat airfield was up and running more combat operations after a two martini lunch.

Morale of the story: Never take a knife to a gunfight or a cruise missile to a crackhead fight.

[*bfine32*]

Looks like we sent a little Merica ISIS's way too:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-drops-mother-of-all-bombs-in-afghanistan-in-first-use-of-weapon/ar-BBzOoMc?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Quote:The U.S. dropped a bomb with an explosive force equal to 11 tons of TNT on a cave complex used by the Afghanistan branch of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on Thursday, the Pentagon said.
The bomb is officially called a GBU-43 or Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), the origin of its nickname as the “mother of all bombs.” Weighing more than 21,000 lbs., the weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat.

[GMDino]

THE GUY LITERALLY DID AN AD FOR HIS PRIVATE CLUB'S DESSERT OFFERINGS WHILE DESCRIBING A MISSILE STRIKE

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) April 12, 2017

[Belsnickel]

(04-13-2017, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like we sent a little Merica ISIS's way too:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-drops-mother-of-all-bombs-in-afghanistan-in-first-use-of-weapon/ar-BBzOoMc?OCID=ansmsnnews11

I had heard of these, but never read much on them. DW did a piece on just what the MOAB is and it is a pretty nifty feat of engineering.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-13-2017, 11:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had heard of these, but never read much on them. DW did a piece on just what the MOAB is and it is a pretty nifty feat of engineering.

I'm sure it all gave Trump a big hard-on.

But, seriously, W sent the ultimate message in Afghanistan and Iraq....and it had zero impact on Iran and North Korea.  Dick-waving doesn't do shit so there's no sense in applauding it.


But from in a sort of July 4th perspective - ***** awesome!!!!

[JustWinBaby]

(04-13-2017, 07:49 PM)Dill Wrote: You leave me totally puzzled, Justwin.  

No, we are not able to judge Obama's actions a failure, especially after he removed Syria's nerve gas stockpiles and Assad did not use any for three years.  And he did this without military action.

We don't need long term policy goals to say that Assad's actions were bad. But we do need them to judge whether ours were "successful" or effective, not to mention good or bad.

No special reason to believe Hillary would have reacted impulsively, ignoring diplomacy and prior agreements.

You get authoritarian style points for pronouncing the matter "done" before you hear anyone's response, though.

Are you attempting to disagree with me here, or are you just trying to straddle the fence because you're not sure whether I was criticizing Obama, praising him, or drawing a restrained middle ground?

Hillary LITERALLY said two hours before the attack that we should bomb Syria.  How was that confusing?!?

And did Obama remove Assad's nerve gas stockpiles?  Did he?  How do you know this?  Did you mean he trusted Putin to do it?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-14-2017, 01:17 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm sure it all gave Trump a big hard-on.

But, seriously, W sent the ultimate message in Afghanistan and Iraq....and it had zero impact on Iran and North Korea.  Dick-waving doesn't do shit so there's no sense in applauding it.


But from in a sort of July 4th perspective - ***** awesome!!!!

First, Afghanistan and Iraq weren't meant as some show of force to scare Iran and North Korea straight.

Second, Iran and North Korea know we have our hands full with Afghanistan and dealing with the consequences of the Iraq blunder so it's business as usual for them.

[hollodero]

(04-13-2017, 08:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: No doubt that Russia has been benefiting from the disorder in Europe caused by the Syrian refugees. But I think that he has played that situation as much as he can. It was starting to wind down before this happened. Also, I don't think that the refugee situation was something that Putin planned. Rather, I suspect it was an situation he saw unfolding and decided to use to his advantage.

Probably true.
Ironically enough, Trump obviously undoes what Putin tries to do... people in Europe turn away from the far right again because they see what's going on in the US. Trump effect, we even gave that a name after Geert Wilders didn't even come close to meet expectations.

Regarding refugees, if I'm right (and that I don't know), Putín's next logical move would be setting the refugees in Turkey free and creating a secondary wave into Europe. We pay Erdogan quite a lot of money to prevent that from happening. Putin would have to support a divide between Turkey and Europe - which, according to my observations, he actually does. Red Troll army already rallying up Turks in Europe. (I also have a whole conspiracy going on there, regarding that ominous "military coup" in Turkey, without any proof I claim maybe Putin was behind what I call a designed smokescreen to strengthen Erdogan and estrange Turkey from Europe.)

Oh btw. I despise Putin and I would beg all Americans to do the same :) We are all under severe Russian propaganda fire (that is not a conspiracy theory), and still it gets widely downplayed despite all evidence and alarmed voices. Would need an own thread to get into this, but I want to make this unhonorable mention anyway.

(04-13-2017, 08:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I believe that he was already trying to position himself to be the "great peacemaker" in Syria. He wants peace in Syria (under a favorable regime to him) for Russia's prestige. It demonstrates that they can solve problems within their sphere of influence where the U.S. could not. This is old Soviet Cold War style thinking, but a lot of what Putin does can be defined that way.

As far as what Russia has been doing against the rebels, they have been bombing the hell out of them. The U.S.-allied rebels, that is. Not so much ISIS. Russia actually has been doing business with ISIS (A Russian refinery in Syria pays ISIS to bring crude oil there for processing and resale. The Russians have an agreement with Assad not to interfere with their deliveries, now that Assad's forces have retaken the refinery.). The Russian air campaign has been very effective and a main reason why Assad's forces have been able to retake all of the major urban areas during the past 2 years.

This also might very well be true. I'm just still not so sure whether he wanted peace or ongoing war in Syria. Going with Assad alone is not a peaceful measure, his being a butcher and all was a great (not the only) cause for the civil war in the first place, so what's the peace point here. Putin, if he really wanted it, failed miserably in bringing peace. Russian influence has done nothing to get closer to a peaceful solution. Whether that's due to incompetence or to more cynical goals, I can not say, but I am inclined to think it's the latter.
I mean, you're wiser and more knowledgeable in these matters, your voice counts. So well, maybe he wants to be the peacemaker and I just fail to see it.

(04-13-2017, 08:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Putin is sinister. He is probably about as sociopathic as they come. Any effort he makes to appear caring is disingenuous and done purely for publicity and politics. He wants to be perceived as a peacemaker only for political purposes. 

Chemical weapons have been universally deplored since World War I. It is something that just about every nation in the world agrees with (except Assad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Whichever, etc.). It is the only class of weaponry which the world has made an attempt to outlaw. I have heard the argument about "Why do we only ban chemical weapons?" My response is "At least we try to ban them. Isn't that a start?"

I don't fully disagree. I did not condemn the air strikes and didn't hold it against the Trump admin. I also don't praise it though, because I want to see it like it is (to me). A start without further engagement in a race just gains you a participation medal, which is a symbolic price, and that's what this is, a symbolic gesture. In reality, I am not sure if I can say that one single casualty in the future is avoided by the strike. What might be avoided is gassing, Assad might turn back to barrel bombing, shooting, bombarding and all these conventional killing methods that don't make the victims any less dead. Is it less gruesome as a chemical attack? Well. Debating such nuances seems cynical to me. Assad is inclined to go back to barrel bombing, which explicitely doesn't trigger any reaction. I can not really regard that as a step towards more humanity.
I do get how one could take a different stance, standing up to the no gassing principle is not inherently wrong and maybe it really does something. That's why I'm OK with the strike. I just have my doubts it does anything substantial.

[Rotobeast]

(04-13-2017, 02:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How did the plan to destroy Syria begin with the Bush administration if the CIA document is dated 1983?

I expected a lot better from someone calling himself Tyler Durden.

Please let Tyler know Turkey doesn't need to funnel ISIS into Syria because Iraq and Syria share a common border and they pretty much come and go as they please.

You think Ronnie was running the show ?
The ex-CIA director was ballin'.

[GMDino]

Typical of Trump's management "style" he has washed his hands of the dirty work, given subordinates the ability to do what they want and he can take credit when things go well and deny his involvement when they do not.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/donald-trump-moab-afghanistan/

Quote:The United States on Thursday dropped the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in its military arsenal for the first time in history.


But President Donald Trump declined to say whether he personally signed off on the use of the GBU-43/B MOAB, also known as the "mother of all bombs," in a strike on ISIS militants in Afghanistan.

"Everybody knows exactly what happens. So, what I do is I authorize our military," Trump said when asked whether he authorized the strike. "We have given them total authorization and that's what they're doing."

Sources told CNN that Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on the use of the bomb. The White House was informed of the plan before the MC-130 aircraft delivered its 21,600-pound payload.

Trump has given military commanders broader latitude to act independently on several battlefields where US forces are involved, which Trump touted as making a "tremendous difference" in the fight against ISIS.

While Trump's comments Thursday suggested that he was not personally involved in the decision to drop the bomb,
Trump was eager to associate himself with the bold display of power.

Trump praised the military for the bombing run and called it "another very, very successful mission."

A senior administration official, who declined to say whether Trump had ordered the strike in Afghanistan said, in general, "we don't approve every strike," adding that "this administration has moved further away" from dictating military strategy from the White House.

It's a change both the President and Defense Secretary James Mattis wanted, the official said.

The bombing in Afghanistan comes a week after Trump authorized a US missile strike against a Syrian government air base -- the first US strike against the Syrian government in the country's six-year civil war.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer earlier on Thursday confirmed the strike took place, targeting "a system of tunnels and caves that ISIS fighters use to move around freely," but also declined to answer any questions about Trump's role in authorizing first-ever use of the MOAB bomb on the battlefield.

Spicer also deferred all questions about the decision to use the bomb and the potential for future uses of the bomb on other battlefields to the Defense Department.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-14-2017, 10:01 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: You think Ronnie was running the show ?
The ex-CIA director was ballin'.

Tyler Durden was referring to W's administration.

[Rotobeast]

(04-14-2017, 10:33 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Tyler Durden was referring to W's administration.

Seriously though....

It seems they were suggesting the CIA plans were drawn up in 83, but not totally implemented until W's term began.
That's how I read it.

[Dill]

(04-14-2017, 01:28 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Are you attempting to disagree with me here, or are you just trying to straddle the fence because you're not sure whether I was criticizing Obama, praising him, or drawing a restrained middle ground?

Hillary LITERALLY said two hours before the attack that we should bomb Syria.  How was that confusing?!?

And did Obama remove Assad's nerve gas stockpiles?  Did he?  How do you know this?  Did you mean he trusted Putin to do it?

Russia, the US, the UN and OPCW worked together to identify and remove the gas. Finland and Great Britain destroyed a portion of the gas. The US destroyed the rest on a ship at sea. all this per UN resolution 2118. It was the Organization for Prevention of Chemical Warfare which oversaw the operation and verified the destruction.

I said that Clinton would not react impulsively, and would work within precedent and diplomatic frameworks. I stand by that. That doesn't exclude bombing. everyone knows she is more hawkish than Obama. The complaint about Trump is not THAT he bombed but that he did it IMPULSIVELY, 180 u turn in policy.

With no overall foreign policy strategy, it is hard to know whether Trump's action will have positive results. It certainly put Americans on the ground in Syria in immediate danger. Why would Syria suddenly turn to nerve gas right AFTER Trumps' secretary of state signaled Syria was not our concern.

So yes, I was disagreeing with you if you think we can judge the success of Trump's without a coherent policy framework.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2017, 11:32 PM)Dill Wrote: I said that Clinton would not react impulsively, and would work within precedent and diplomatic frameworks. I stand by that. That doesn't exclude bombing. everyone knows she is more hawkish than Obama. The complaint about Trump is not THAT he bombed but that he did it IMPULSIVELY, 180 u turn in policy.

So Hills called for bombing before it happened, but she did so non-impulsively. But when Trump ordered it, it was impulsively. At least you are looking at it with a non-biased view.

[Dill]

(04-14-2017, 01:17 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm sure it all gave Trump a big hard-on.

But, seriously, W sent the ultimate message in Afghanistan and Iraq....and it had zero impact on Iran and North Korea.  Dick-waving doesn't do shit so there's no sense in applauding it.


But from in a sort of July 4th perspective - ***** awesome!!!!

I do agree with this Justwin, especially the effectiveness of our "messaging" with military force.

[Dill]

(04-14-2017, 11:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So Hills called for bombing before it happened, but she did so non-impulsively. But when Trump ordered it, it was impulsively. At least you are looking at it with a non-biased view.

Yes.

[Dill]

(04-13-2017, 08:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: No doubt that Russia has been benefiting from the disorder in Europe caused by the Syrian refugees. But I think that he has played that situation as much as he can. It was starting to wind down before this happened. Also, I don't think that the refugee situation was something that Putin planned. Rather, I suspect it was an situation he saw unfolding and decided to use to his advantage. I believe that he was already trying to position himself to be the "great peacemaker" in Syria. He wants peace in Syria (under a favorable regime to him) for Russia's prestige. It demonstrates that they can solve problems within their sphere of influence where the U.S. could not. This is old Soviet Cold War style thinking, but a lot of what Putin does can be defined that way.

That was an excellent post B-zona. I agree Syria is important to Russia. There is the warm water port, for example, and Syria makes Russia a military broker in the world oil economy.

It is better for Russia, less of a drain on resources, if Syria can be stabilized. It is a matter of economics as well as prestige I believe.

I would add there is another aspect of old Cold War style thinking here. The reduction of Russia's borders and power has not been easy on people like Putin, who remember the days when Russia was an equal player with the US. I think there are identity issues in part driving the investment in Syria. Russia's economy is the size of Italy's, but Russia leaders remember Superpower status. It still has a piece of that in the Middle East.

[GMDino]

(04-14-2017, 11:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So Hills called for bombing before it happened, but she did so non-impulsively. But when Trump ordered it, it was impulsively. At least you are looking at it with a non-biased view.

One has a long history of foreign policy decisions...the other changed his mind because he watched the news.

[Bengalzona]

(04-15-2017, 12:08 AM)Dill Wrote: That was an excellent post B-zona. I agree Syria is important to Russia. There is the warm water port, for example, and Syria makes Russia a military broker in the world oil economy.

It is better for Russia, less of a drain on resources, if Syria can be stabilized. It is a matter of economics as well as prestige I believe.

I would add there is another aspect of old Cold War style thinking here. The reduction of Russia's borders and power has not been easy on people like Putin, who remember the days when Russia was an equal player with the US. I think there are identity issues in part driving the investment in Syria. Russia's economy is the size of Italy's, but Russia leaders remember Superpower status. It still has a piece of that in the Middle East.

Thank you, sir.

The media here has been focusing on Russian influence in the U.S. election, Brexit, and possibly in upcoming German and French elections. Rightfully so. But there is another place they should be looking at Russian influence as well: Turkey.

Russia and Turkey have a history of enmity that goes back centuries. The Russians have coveted Turkey because of their control of the Bosphorus Strait, which strategically controls access to the Russia ports in Crimea and the Black Sea. Britain and France teamed with the Ottomans to keep the Russians from the area in the Crimean War during the 1850's. In World War 1, the Ottoman's sided with the Germans due to Russian incursions into their territory. The Amernian genocide had some of its roots in the Russian-Ottoman conflict. Turkey tried to remain neutral during World War 2, but initially supplied the Germans (until late in the war). During the Cold War, Turkey joined NATO and was one of our staunchest allies. They were a massive thorn in the side of the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile crisis was directly linked to our stationing intercontinental ballistic missiles in Turkey. In the 60's and 70's, we worked constantly to broker an agreement between Greece and Turkey over the island of Cyprus, solely because we valued Turkey so much.

Today, things have changed dramatically. The election of Erdoğan has brought a highly conservative, fundamentalist Muslim-based government into power to replace the former liberal secular government. Turkey has always been a Muslim nation, but they have had the most secular and Western-friendly government of all Muslim nations since their founding in 1923. They are one of the few Muslim nations with a democratically-elected government. That too may change this weekend as Erdoğan has requested a referendum to expand his presidential powers to almost dictatorial levels. The referendum is a close vote, but is expected to pass. There is evidence that Russia is again making efforts to influence the vote, this time on behalf of Erdoğan.

Since Erdoğan's election, Turkey has created new ties with Russia and the two nations now have the closest relationship that they have had in two centuries. Russia has included Turkey, along with Iran and the Assad government, in its peace strategy discussions for Syria. The turning of Turkey from pro-Western to pro-Russian will be a monumental strategic coup for Putin. And it looks like that is taking place before our eyes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/15/turkey-prepares-for-tight-vote-that-could-strengthen-erdogans-grip-on-power