Register to Comment
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 112
Like Tree74Likes
  1. #21
    Thac0man Thac0man is offline
    Thac0man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    14,009
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadaist View Post
    Is Dennis O'Brien mentioned in this thread?
    Its probably inevitable, once the older baggage has been unpacked.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    parentheses parentheses is offline
    parentheses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    12,168

    The GOP and Hillary want a no-fly zone in Syria.

    American planes confronting the Russians.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/us...zone.html?_r=0
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    Thac0man Thac0man is offline
    Thac0man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    14,009
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by parentheses View Post
    An actual victory by Russia and its allies in Syria could have the severest consequences for America's prestige and freedom of action in the "Rimland".
    It must be asked, what exactly does Russia win long term? They are not replacing non-existent US influence over the Syrian government. Instead they are shoring up a government sponsored by Iran, in a war that is contained within what was Iran's sole sphere of influence. Iran is not going to share influence in Syria, and give Assad someone else to turn to.

    The Russians will sell arms, but there is nothing else for them to gain by being in the Middle East. Ultimately no external powers benefit by directly interfering in the region. Does someone want to make the case for Russia being the exception?

    Any effort by Russia to copper fasten Shia dominance over what the Arab League is describing as 'Arab Muslim lands', will not end well or quickly. A major outside power stepping in on the ground in Syria is a historic moment, both for Sunni and Shia Muslims. And in Middle East terms that means Russia is committing an act that will seed generations with vengeance. But hey, its not like Arabs hold a grudges, right? There was a very good reason why Washington declared 'no boots on the ground' early on.

    We have cataloged decades of US 'interference' in the region, and seen a turbo fan of criticism based on the arguments that it was doing the US no good in the long term. And there is the key phrase; 'long term'. The Syrian uprising was a prelude to the war taking place now, and this one is only a prelude to the next. It will be interesting to see how Russia handles the diplomatic baggage and spill over that inevitably accompanies involvement in Middle East politics.
    Last edited by Thac0man; 20th October 2015 at 06:25 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    odie1kanobe odie1kanobe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    32,132

    Quote Originally Posted by Thac0man View Post
    It must be asked, what exactly does Russia win long term? They are not replacing non-existent US influence over the Syrian government. Instead they are shoring up a government sponsored by Iran, in a war that is contained within what was Iran's sole sphere of influence. Iran is not going to share influence in Syria, and give Assad someone else to turn to.

    The Russians will sell arms, but there is nothing else for them to gain by being in the Middle East. Ultimately no external powers benefit by directly interfering in the region. Does someone want to make the case for Russia being the exception?

    Any effort by Russia to copper fasten Shia dominance over what the Arab League is describing as 'Arab Muslim lands', will not end well or quickly. A major outside power stepping in on the ground in Syria is a historic moment, both for Sunni and Shia Muslims. And in Middle East terms that means Russia is committing an act that will seed generations with vengeance. But hey, its not like Arabs hold a grudges, right? There was a very good reason why Washington declared 'no boots on the ground' early on.

    We have cataloged decades of US 'interference' in the region, and seen a turbo fan of criticism based on the arguments that it was doing the US no good in the long term. And there is the key phrase; 'long term'. The Syrian uprising was a prelude to the war taking place now, and this one is only a prelude to the next. It will be interesting to see how Russia handles the diplomatic baggage and spill over that inevitably accompanies involvement in Middle East politics.

    Russia wins by showing what it can do, US only supplied rhethoric and arms by using foreign mercaneries.
    Nobody believed the US was doing anything other than supplying arms, even its allies know that.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    Ren84 Ren84 is offline
    Ren84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    51,486

    By Russia's actions they have travelled back in time to 1979 when their support for an illegitimate regime in Afghanistan sucked Moscow into a 10 year long quagmire. The CIA, through Pak ISI armed the Mujahadeen forces with Stingers that wrecked havoc on Soviet gunships. Today the CIA, through Jordanian and Turkish intelligence is arming Syrian rebel groups with TOW missiles wrecking havoc on Assadist tank armour. It's only a matter of time before they start receiving anti-air missiles as well.

    But one thing this Russian intervention in the ME has shown to the West is Moscow's inability to wage a two-front war, with its "volunteers" being moved out of Ukraine and into Syria. This will provide the Ukrainian govt and opportunity to bolster its frontlines with the pro Russian terrorists in the east.

    Keep at it Russia, you are slowly bleeding yourselves to death.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    parentheses parentheses is offline
    parentheses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    12,168

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren84 View Post
    Today the CIA, through Jordanian and Turkish intelligence is arming Syrian rebel groups with TOW missiles wrecking havoc on Assadist tank armour. It's only a matter of time before they start receiving anti-air missiles as well.
    Ecstatically happy as the CIA arms groups subordinate to AL Qaida

    You really are an evil loon fanatic.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    jcdf jcdf is offline
    jcdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,034

    Quote Originally Posted by Thac0man View Post
    It must be asked, what exactly does Russia win long term? They are not replacing non-existent US influence over the Syrian government. Instead they are shoring up a government sponsored by Iran, in a war that is contained within what was Iran's sole sphere of influence. Iran is not going to share influence in Syria, and give Assad someone else to turn to.

    The Russians will sell arms, but there is nothing else for them to gain by being in the Middle East. Ultimately no external powers benefit by directly interfering in the region. Does someone want to make the case for Russia being the exception?

    Any effort by Russia to copper fasten Shia dominance over what the Arab League is describing as 'Arab Muslim lands', will not end well or quickly. A major outside power stepping in on the ground in Syria is a historic moment, both for Sunni and Shia Muslims. And in Middle East terms that means Russia is committing an act that will seed generations with vengeance. But hey, its not like Arabs hold a grudges, right? There was a very good reason why Washington declared 'no boots on the ground' early on.

    We have cataloged decades of US 'interference' in the region, and seen a turbo fan of criticism based on the arguments that it was doing the US no good in the long term. And there is the key phrase; 'long term'. The Syrian uprising was a prelude to the war taking place now, and this one is only a prelude to the next. It will be interesting to see how Russia handles the diplomatic baggage and spill over that inevitably accompanies involvement in Middle East politics.
    If Iran wants to maintain it's position as Syria's sole master then it will need to commit some serious military power to the place. Not the token thousands or tens of thousands of troops, no it will need to send a hundred thousand plus troops to Syria. Nothing else is going to let Assad keep control over more than half of the place.

    The Russians get a navy base by interfering in Syria. I am sure there has to be some resources there, and lucrative reconstruction contracts to rebuild everything blown to pieces winning this war. Half the place has already been bombed into the ground. For Assad to win back control over more than half the country he will probably have to bomb the other half into the ground as well.

    I think you are wildly exaggerating about this. Over the course of human history, past few millennium anyway, no region has been occupied by major outside powers more than the Middle East. Even the last century the USA and Soviet Union were all over the place, before them the British and French carved it up and while doing so the Italians and Germans tried taking parts of it off them. The Greeks tried invading Turkey a while later. I am calling bull************************ on this.

    Many Muslims have reviled Russia for a very long time now Chechnya, Afghanistan, collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Incurring the Arabs or Muslims wrath should no way dissuade any rational body from a given course of action.

    I agree with your assessment of the escalating conflict in the Middle East and that today's conflict can only lead to more intensified version of itself in the future. Diplomacy is a bit easier for Russians than it is for us as their societies principles are not as saturated with morality as our own.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    Ren84 Ren84 is offline
    Ren84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    51,486

    Quote Originally Posted by parentheses View Post
    Ecstatically happy as the CIA arms groups subordinate to AL Qaida

    You really are an evil loon fanatic.
    The CIA isn't arming AQ with TOWs you degenerate tosspot.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    parentheses parentheses is offline
    parentheses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    12,168

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren84 View Post
    The CIA isn't arming AQ with TOWs you degenerate tosspot.
    My statement is true, madman.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    Daniel M Daniel M is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    432

    Quote Originally Posted by Thac0man View Post
    It must be asked, what exactly does Russia win long term? They are not replacing non-existent US influence over the Syrian government. Instead they are shoring up a government sponsored by Iran, in a war that is contained within what was Iran's sole sphere of influence. Iran is not going to share influence in Syria, and give Assad someone else to turn to.

    The Russians will sell arms, but there is nothing else for them to gain by being in the Middle East. Ultimately no external powers benefit by directly interfering in the region. Does someone want to make the case for Russia being the exception?

    Any effort by Russia to copper fasten Shia dominance over what the Arab League is describing as 'Arab Muslim lands', will not end well or quickly. A major outside power stepping in on the ground in Syria is a historic moment, both for Sunni and Shia Muslims. And in Middle East terms that means Russia is committing an act that will seed generations with vengeance. But hey, its not like Arabs hold a grudges, right? There was a very good reason why Washington declared 'no boots on the ground' early on.

    We have cataloged decades of US 'interference' in the region, and seen a turbo fan of criticism based on the arguments that it was doing the US no good in the long term. And there is the key phrase; 'long term'. The Syrian uprising was a prelude to the war taking place now, and this one is only a prelude to the next. It will be interesting to see how Russia handles the diplomatic baggage and spill over that inevitably accompanies involvement in Middle East politics.
    Maybe Russia is following a policy of rolling back US influence wherever possible, the same policy that the US used against the USSR during the cold war. The point Russia wants to make is that it won't accept US regime change of Russian allies any longer. Putin was furious when Medvedev accepted US regime change in Libya to oust the Russian ally Qaddafi and probably is adamant that it won't happen again. Also remember that in Moscow they see Maidan as an US led coup attempt to gain power in Ukraine. So rolling back the US where Russia can is probably a chief Russian geopolitical goal as of now.

    Also remember that an important reason why the US want Assad gone is that by gaining control of Syria a Qatari pipeline could be built across Syria to Europe, rendering Russia much weaker and with less energy influence over Europe. Thus the struggle over Syria is just a classic great power proxy conflict.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment