"The arrival of the Russian gunships continues that build-up of offensive Russian military weapon systems inside Syria along the Mediterranean coast. In addition to expanding the airport with pre-fabricated housing for 1,500 troops and the arrival of tanks, Russian cargo ships have offloaded roughly 15 artillery pieces and 35 armored personnel carriers in Tartus in the past few days."

"The same day, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the military support to Syria would continue and warned the refugee crisis engulfing Europe would become "even bigger" without Russian assistance to the Assad regime."

Don't poke the bear, ISIS. Putin will do what Obama isn't willing to do. In the short-term, Putin taking out ISIS in Syria is good for the refugees, and good for stability in the region.. but we most definitely need to be worried about the Russians getting a foothold in the Middle East, alongside Putin's buddies the Ayatollah and Assad.

ISIS is in trouble.

This is how letting a regional issue get out of hand leads to a worldwide problem. Congrats O for leading from behind.

Well before Afghanistan, The Soviet Union had a fairly solid check on Muslim Extremism. You didn't see much of Them going after American interests when the Russians had them locked down. ISIS, prepare to Meet You maker They won't mess around with you.

(09-16-2015 12:57 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Well before Afghanistan, The Soviet Union had a fairly solid check on Muslim Extremism. You didn't see much of Them going after American interests when the Russians had them locked down. ISIS, prepare to Meet You maker They won't mess around with you.

Only problem is last time US attempts to undermine Russian influence lead to Osama Bin Laden. Have we learned from past mistakes or merely started the cycle again?

(09-16-2015 12:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  This is how letting a regional issue get out of hand leads to a worldwide problem. Congrats O for leading from behind.

Didn't O want to intervene with Syria but the country and congress didn't want to...so he left it up to congress and they decided against it?

Quote:WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

In one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency, Mr. Obama effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons. By asking them to take a stand, Mr. Obama tried to break out of the isolation of the last week as he confronted taking action without the support of the United Nations, Congress, the public or Britain, a usually reliable partner in such international operations.

“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Can't really fault him on this one.

(09-16-2015 02:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 12:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  This is how letting a regional issue get out of hand leads to a worldwide problem. Congrats O for leading from behind.

Didn't O want to intervene with Syria but the country and congress didn't want to...so he left it up to congress and they decided against it?

Quote:WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

In one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency, Mr. Obama effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons. By asking them to take a stand, Mr. Obama tried to break out of the isolation of the last week as he confronted taking action without the support of the United Nations, Congress, the public or Britain, a usually reliable partner in such international operations.

“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Can't really fault him on this one.

Republicans were skeptical because it was a severely limited intervention. The very kind that has repeatedly failed to stop ISIS. An overall lack of cohesive policy is Obama's downfall here, from Libya and Egypt to Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

So a major intervention would have definitely made things better? How'd Iraq work out in that regard?

And where would we have gotten the resources from (men, women and treasure) to undertake it?

(09-16-2015 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So a major intervention would have definitely made things better? How'd Iraq work out in that regard?

Just fine until Obama pulled out.

(09-16-2015 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And where would we have gotten the resources from (men, women and treasure) to undertake it?

Same place Obama gets all his other 'treasure'. Just print or borrow it.

(09-16-2015 02:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So a major intervention would have definitely made things better? How'd Iraq work out in that regard?

Just fine until Obama pulled out.

(09-16-2015 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And where would we have gotten the resources from (men, women and treasure) to undertake it?

Same place Obama gets all his other 'treasure'. Just print or borrow it.

You mean like we did for Iraq? Who started that again? And no, it wasn't Hillary and her yes vote, it was the CIC.

And again, Bush negotiated the pull out and Iraq didn't want us there regardless...our full fighting force couldn't stay.

(09-16-2015 02:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 02:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So a major intervention would have definitely made things better? How'd Iraq work out in that regard?

Just fine until Obama pulled out.

(09-16-2015 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And where would we have gotten the resources from (men, women and treasure) to undertake it?

Same place Obama gets all his other 'treasure'. Just print or borrow it.

You mean like we did for Iraq? Who started that again? And no, it wasn't Hillary and her yes vote, it was the CIC.

And again, Bush negotiated the pull out and Iraq didn't want us there regardless...our full fighting force couldn't stay.

Any sizable presence would likely have prevented the rise of ISIS and today we would have a more stable Iraq, and a Syria problem that would have much less moving parts. (Russia, Iran, ISIS)

Trump will take care of Putin. Putin will be dancing in a tutu in Red Square before Trump is done with him.

(09-16-2015 02:47 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 02:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 02:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So a major intervention would have definitely made things better? How'd Iraq work out in that regard?

Just fine until Obama pulled out.

(09-16-2015 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And where would we have gotten the resources from (men, women and treasure) to undertake it?

Same place Obama gets all his other 'treasure'. Just print or borrow it.

You mean like we did for Iraq? Who started that again? And no, it wasn't Hillary and her yes vote, it was the CIC.

And again, Bush negotiated the pull out and Iraq didn't want us there regardless...our full fighting force couldn't stay.

Any sizable presence would likely have prevented the rise of ISIS and today we would have a more stable Iraq, and a Syria problem that would have much less moving parts. (Russia, Iran, ISIS)

But didn't ISIS rise in Syria from the remnants of the Old Iraqi Republican guard along with Al Qaeda in Iraq? So wouldn't we have had to go into Syria at some point to defeat them...or to 'prevent' them rising to what they are today?

Regardless, there's no guarantees. We didn't want to say in Iraq any longer...Iraq didn't want us to stay any longer.

It's just like War Games. Sometimes the best move is not to play.

Problem I see is there is no mechanism to "deconflict" US Airstrikes on ISIS in Syria. Some F-15/22 Pilot picks up an airborne contact in his flight path and things could get messy.

Easy way would be restrict US/Arab Strikes to IS positions in Iraq and let the Russians take Syria.

It's looking more and more that the Russian base is designed to protect Iran from an Israeli attack. Aircraft and equipment being flown in has little use for a counter-insurgency fight.

(09-20-2015 04:06 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  It's looking more and more that the Russian base is designed to protect Iran from an Israeli attack. Aircraft and equipment being flown in has little use for a counter-insurgency fight.

IDK, If Russia was wanting Iran to have Nukes, They could just ship them to Iran probably without much fanfare. Same with Syria. I doubt Obama would interfere anyway with Russia.

I don't think Putin really has a horse in the race. He just wants general instability to continue so that he can expand his empire further into Eastern Europe without anyone taking notice.