(10-01-2015 11:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 11:20 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  You would be surprised how a show of strength pulls people to your side. Putin wants Russian presence in the area and he will get it Iraq. Iran. Syria. Several of the Emirates. Jordan is a wild card unfortunately.
The only opposition will be from SA and Israel

Yes, just like all opposition floated away for a couple of months when we deployed overwhelming forces in the area. Syria has lots of non-Shiites

A Russia/Iran/Assad alliance would clear out the non-Assad opposition, but would inevitably fall apart once the Sunnis started another uprising. Turkey isn't going to like that either. And tying to connect the dots to create the arc from Iran to Syria would involve retaining the Sunni triangle.

Iran and Russia will, if anything, have a MORE difficult time retaining control. Iran's involvement guarantees that the Saudis and the Gulf states will cause trouble. Turkey isn't going to like it either.

When was this? We have never done that in the area since this Administration has been in charge. The Russians and the Iraninans will have an easier time than the US did because they are ruthless in combating dissent
The point actually was that who ever shows strength in the area will be the one to have the most control.

(10-01-2015 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Supporting Assad just means endless war. Destabilization may be Russia's goal. That's what they have achieved in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and the Ukraine.

Assad has burned bridges. He can't do anything but hold onto a rump state.

Youre right about Assad.

This destabilization doesn't help Russia. It might help PUTIN, but this hurts Russia.

Putin doesn't care as long as it helps him.

But Assad's fall means they get kicked out of their naval base and may have a state hostile to Russia. Instability could be what they view as in Russia's best interests.

(10-01-2015 12:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Supporting Assad just means endless war. Destabilization may be Russia's goal. That's what they have achieved in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and the Ukraine.

Assad has burned bridges. He can't do anything but hold onto a rump state.

Youre right about Assad.

This destabilization doesn't help Russia. It might help PUTIN, but this hurts Russia.

Putin doesn't care as long as it helps him.

But Assad's fall means they get kicked out of their naval base and may have a state hostile to Russia. Instability could be what they view as in Russia's best interests.

I think its just Putin being Putin. Making lemons out of lemonade.

(10-01-2015 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, we tried sorting out the region. Obama is correct IMHO to stay the f out of it. I'm sad for the Syrian people, but if Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Erdogan, and Qatar want to engage in a bit of fighting amongst themselves in an area that is no longer strategically important to the US, I'm not willing to kill off our troops to try to stop them. Quite frankly, I don't see anybody "winning" there for a long time.

Obama did not stay the **** out. He promised FSA support and gave none. He's sent drones in and maneuvered the US into taking a black eye. What he's done is significantly worse than staying the **** out, but much, much better than sending in ground troops without the will to do anything that would make a difference.

(10-01-2015 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Supporting Assad just means endless war. Destabilization may be Russia's goal. That's what they have achieved in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and the Ukraine.
Assad has burned bridges. He can't do anything but hold onto a rump state.

Youre right about Assad.
This destabilization doesn't help Russia. It might help PUTIN, but this hurts Russia.

I disagree to some extent. The only way anyone could stabilize the country is a combination of ethnic cleansing and substantial foreign troop assistance. Russia is supplying the air power, and Reuters is reporting that Iran is sending in ground troops. My prediction is that those troops will bypass ISIS areas, pacify FSA areas, and eventually turn towards ISIS.

I think the Saudis will have to find a way to accept whatever happens in Syria, but it would be a disaster for them to actually send troops to Syria to face Iran. Do you think that the US would support a Saudi offensive? Do you think that Saudi Arabia would believe US commitments to help them? I think it's more likely that Saudi Arabia would covertly support ISIS than it is that they would send their own troops, and I think it's pretty unlikely that Saudi Arabia would either turn support to ISIS or that the current Saudi proxies in Syria will survive this new offensive by Assad/Iran/Russia. At this stage, this is a disaster for Saudi Arabia.

Iran troops to join Syria war, Russia bombs group trained by CIA | Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/0...1O20151001 Wrote:Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria to join a major ground offensive in support of President Bashar al-Assad's government, Lebanese sources said on Thursday, a further sign of the rapid internationalization of a civil war in which every major country in the region has a stake.

(10-01-2015 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  We allowed Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists.
Somalia is a haven for pirates and terrorists.
Obama encouraged Libya to head down the path of a failed state.
We can't allow Iraq and Syria to become terrorists havens or failed states.

On the positive side, we've likely ensured that both Iraq and Syria will have as much support - in blood and money - from Iran as they need. They won't be terrorist havens so much as states that will provide bodies for to terrorists (Hezbollah) as repayment for Iranian/Hezbollah support.

It's notable that HAMAS has turned away from Iranian support and is now looking for support from Saudi Arabia as a benefactor (Qatar will always be a fallback for them). Iran has essentially cut ties with HAMAS, who is unwilling to convert to Shiism, and tried to ramp up a new Hezbollah-Gaza franchise to go along with new Hebollah-Syria, Hezbollah-Badr, and Hezbollah-Yemen brethren.

Iran's New Proxy Militia in Gaza | Foreign Affairs

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/...pbC5jb20S1 Wrote:Iran has responded to Hamas’ defiance by reducing funding and making a serious attempt at empowering another Palestinian terror group in the Gaza Strip. Over the past year and a half, the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, assisted by the Palestinian Operations department of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, has financed and provided media exposure to the al Sabirin (“the patient”) movement in the Gaza Strip. This new militant group seeks to emulate Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shiite militias such as the Badr Organization, known for its blatant pro-Iranian sentiments. Iran hopes that al Sabirin will become a reliable proxy militia in Gaza.

(10-01-2015 12:47 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, we tried sorting out the region. Obama is correct IMHO to stay the f out of it. I'm sad for the Syrian people, but if Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Erdogan, and Qatar want to engage in a bit of fighting amongst themselves in an area that is no longer strategically important to the US, I'm not willing to kill off our troops to try to stop them. Quite frankly, I don't see anybody "winning" there for a long time.

Obama did not stay the **** out. He promised FSA support and gave none. He's sent drones in and maneuvered the US into taking a black eye. What he's done is significantly worse than staying the **** out, but much, much better than sending in ground troops without the will to do anything that would make a difference.

(10-01-2015 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Supporting Assad just means endless war. Destabilization may be Russia's goal. That's what they have achieved in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and the Ukraine.
Assad has burned bridges. He can't do anything but hold onto a rump state.

Youre right about Assad.
This destabilization doesn't help Russia. It might help PUTIN, but this hurts Russia.

I disagree to some extent. The only way anyone could stabilize the country is a combination of ethnic cleansing and substantial foreign troop assistance. Russia is supplying the air power, and Reuters is reporting that Iran is sending in ground troops. My prediction is that those troops will bypass ISIS areas, pacify FSA areas, and eventually turn towards ISIS.

I think the Saudis will have to find a way to accept whatever happens in Syria, but it would be a disaster for them to actually send troops to Syria to face Iran. Do you think that the US would support a Saudi offensive? Do you think that Saudi Arabia would believe US commitments to help them? I think it's more likely that Saudi Arabia would covertly support ISIS than it is that they would send their own troops, and I think it's pretty unlikely that Saudi Arabia would either turn support to ISIS or that the current Saudi proxies in Syria will survive this new offensive by Assad/Iran/Russia. At this stage, this is a disaster for Saudi Arabia.

Iran troops to join Syria war, Russia bombs group trained by CIA | Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/0...1O20151001 Wrote:Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria to join a major ground offensive in support of President Bashar al-Assad's government, Lebanese sources said on Thursday, a further sign of the rapid internationalization of a civil war in which every major country in the region has a stake.

If two broke countries (Iran and Russia) want to spend massively and tie up their forces in order to try to protect what they already had until 2 years ago, I'm probably inclined to just let them do so, especially if I don't have any good choices. And if the end result is to f up Saudi Arabia....I'm not opposed to that either. I feel for the Syrian people.

Oh, I fully expect Saudi Arabia and Qatar to join Turkey in supporting ISIS. Russia's involvement guaranteed that. Its either that or let Assad win. Let Russia and Iran fight ISIS.

It doesn't matter what we gave to the non-ISIS Sunni opposition, because the only thing we could have done to help them was to put our troops into Syria to do the fighting for them. We tried to see if we could create a 'better option'. My guess is that all parties involved understood we were reaching at that point. Sometimes the hail mary is caught.

---

Im sure they'll be some handwringing moments here for the USA. But protecting our ability to act in the future by not committing to acting now is the best answer.

The Iranians and the Saudis are itching for a fight. Im going to let Russia and Turkey get in the pit with two dogs fighting.

Yeah. Cause that strategy worked so many times before. Let's not support the Green Revolution so we can broker a nuclear deal later
Let's not arm the Kurds so we can deal with Turkey later
Let's arm insurgents who will only fight ISIS not the regime that has been killing them for years
Want to go back further? Feel free
Being Proactive is better than being Reactive. Because, as this administration has shown, we can always say we can't do anything now when your default is Reactive.
Putin is doing what is best for Putin and by extension Russia. He promised Assad support and is giving it. He of course also gets to keep his port in the Med. Syria gets to assert influence again like they did in the 80's It's an evil alliance but a great paradigm on how you treat allies. We could learn from that

(10-01-2015 01:12 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Yeah. Cause that strategy worked so many times before. Let's not support the Green Revolution so we can broker a nuclear deal later
Let's not arm the Kurds so we can deal with Turkey later
Let's arm insurgents who will only fight ISIS not the regime that has been killing them for years
Want to go back further? Feel free
Being Proactive is better than being Reactive. Because, as this administration has shown, we can always say we can't do anything now when your default is Reactive.
Putin is doing what is best for Putin and by extension Russia. He promised Assad support and is giving it. He of course also gets to keep his port in the Med. Syria gets to assert influence again like they did in the 80's It's an evil alliance but a great paradigm on how you treat allies. We could learn from that

Actually, if there's a fluid situation and there's really no effective way for us to control it, the best course of action is to monitor it and keep our forces ready for action if we need to get involved.

What allies do we have in the region? I'm not seeing ANY...

Turkey? Nope.
The Kurds? Maybe. We have intervened a couple of times to help them
Iran? Nope
Saudi Arabia? Nope
Iraq? Nope
Qatar? Nope
Russia? Nope
Israel? I'd argue they're not our ally as they'd never do something for us unless it was also good for them, but even if they are: Not involved
Jordan? Nope and not involved.
Europe? Sure, but not involved.

Lets say we had some GOP he man in the Oval Office. Please put together a course of action..

When Syria erupted in protests, should we have supported Assad? By the way, any support for the Arab spring movement was minimal by the USA.

(10-01-2015 12:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:08 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:03 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 07:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I kind of agree with Russia on this one. I mean, hopefully we've learned a lesson from the falling of the likes of Sadam and Qadafi, etc. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. I say go after ISIS and then deal with Assad afterwards. If the US and Russia teamed up against ISIS hopefully that would be the ticket to destroying those lunatics.

Except Putin isn't going after ISIS. He's using that as a cover to go after the anti-Assad forces, in order to keep that murdering lunatic in charge. Meanwhile we sit idly by and watch the trio of Russia, Iran and now Syria dominate the region. All right on the doorstep of NATO members and a stones throw from Europe.

Nice job!

This should end well.

The fact those three are doing that with no regard to US reaction should tell us all something regarding our standing in world affairs at the moment.

I'm sure you know this, but it's worse than no regard.

It's with a finger poked right in our chest.

Wasn't Putin just over here a couple days ago? His General strolls into an office in Baghdad and says, "You got an hour to clear out, and oh yea, don't have any of your planes in the air either, we wouldn't want them getting shot down" or some such "warning". Then they proceed to bomb the forces we're supposedly backing, however tepidly.

Leading from behind. Good plan.

Putin saw the US do nothing with that silly red line in Syria and then again do nothing with Ukraine. So, naturally, he believes the US will do nothing against him in Syria. Sad thing is, he's probably right.

(10-01-2015 01:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If two broke countries (Iran and Russia) want to spend massively and tie up their forces in order to try to protect what they already had until 2 years ago, I'm probably inclined to just let them do so, especially if I don't have any good choices. And if the end result is to f up Saudi Arabia....I'm not opposed to that either. I feel for the Syrian people.
Oh, I fully expect Saudi Arabia and Qatar to join Turkey in supporting ISIS. Russia's involvement guaranteed that. Its either that or let Assad win. Let Russia and Iran fight ISIS.
It doesn't matter what we gave to the non-ISIS Sunni opposition, because the only thing we could have done to help them was to put our troops into Syria to do the fighting for them. We tried to see if we could create a 'better option'. My guess is that all parties involved understood we were reaching at that point. Sometimes the hail mary is caught.
---
Im sure they'll be some handwringing moments here for the USA. But protecting our ability to act in the future by not committing to acting now is the best answer.
The Iranians and the Saudis are itching for a fight. Im going to let Russia and Turkey get in the pit with two dogs fighting.

I agree ... the US has no real choice other than to sit this out or march on Raqaa, which would just not be good at this stage.

Here is my prediction for pax Syriana... Assad/Russia/Iran/Iraq work out an agreement to take on the Kurds - at least in Syria, if not both Syria and Iraq - in exchange for Turkey sitting things out and not supporting Sunni groups (ISIS et al) in Syria.

(10-01-2015 12:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Supporting Assad just means endless war. Destabilization may be Russia's goal. That's what they have achieved in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and the Ukraine.

Assad has burned bridges. He can't do anything but hold onto a rump state.

Youre right about Assad.

This destabilization doesn't help Russia. It might help PUTIN, but this hurts Russia.

Putin doesn't care as long as it helps him.

But Assad's fall means they get kicked out of their naval base and may have a state hostile to Russia. Instability could be what they view as in Russia's best interests.

I think its just Putin being Putin. Making lemons out of lemonade.

I agree, but knowing the US won't do anything but offer lip service makes it a lot easier for Putin to be Putin.

(10-01-2015 01:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 01:12 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Yeah. Cause that strategy worked so many times before. Let's not support the Green Revolution so we can broker a nuclear deal later
Let's not arm the Kurds so we can deal with Turkey later
Let's arm insurgents who will only fight ISIS not the regime that has been killing them for years
Want to go back further? Feel free
Being Proactive is better than being Reactive. Because, as this administration has shown, we can always say we can't do anything now when your default is Reactive.
Putin is doing what is best for Putin and by extension Russia. He promised Assad support and is giving it. He of course also gets to keep his port in the Med. Syria gets to assert influence again like they did in the 80's It's an evil alliance but a great paradigm on how you treat allies. We could learn from that

Actually, if there's a fluid situation and there's really no effective way for us to control it, the best course of action is to monitor it and keep our forces ready for action if we need to get involved.

What allies do we have in the region? I'm not seeing ANY...

Turkey? Nope.
The Kurds? Maybe. We have intervened a couple of times to help them
Iran? Nope
Saudi Arabia? Nope
Iraq? Nope
Qatar? Nope
Russia? Nope
Israel? I'd argue they're not our ally as they'd never do something for us unless it was also good for them, but even if they are: Not involved
Jordan? Nope and not involved.
Europe? Sure, but not involved.

Lets say we had some GOP he man in the Oval Office. Please put together a course of action..

When Syria erupted in protests, should we have supported Assad? By the way, any support for the Arab spring movement was minimal by the USA.

Nice list. Not accurate but nice list. You left out a couple but that's ok. Any Nation only has 1 or 2 Allies. Mostly it's 'Similar Interests', and those fluctuate.
I didn't bring up the Arab Spring Movement. But the US did have a large indirect role in it happening. We should have taken a more direct role in Syria and Egypt. But instead were Reactive not Proactive.

The idea that we could establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, and that would lead to stability in the Middle East, may have been the dumbest idea in the history of Earth. Actually that's two ideas (establish democracy, and lead to stability) and it's a rather difficult proposition to determine which is dumber. We further destabilized a region that was doing a good job of being unstable on its own.

Never, ever, ever, ever fight a war that you don't intend to win.

(10-03-2015 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The idea that we could establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, and that would lead to stability in the Middle East, may have been the dumbest idea in the history of Earth. Actually that's two ideas (establish democracy, and lead to stability) and it's a rather difficult proposition to determine which is dumber. We further destabilized a region that was doing a good job of being unstable on its own.

Never, ever, ever, ever fight a war that you don't intend to win.

I'll disagree with your first sentence. Iraq was on its way to its own form of Democracy and being lauded for it. It wasn't like what we have here but was moving in a good direction. I would agree that the US does not have the political will to carry it out to its fulfillment, as we are witnessing.
Whether it would have created stability? No. After some turmoil would it have been more stable area and more US friendly ? Quite possibly. But again, the US didn't and doesn't have the will power to do so.

(10-03-2015 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The idea that we could establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, and that would lead to stability in the Middle East, may have been the dumbest idea in the history of Earth.

We turned Japan a nation who rules their leader as a God into a functioning democracy. What we lacked in Iraq was the commitment to do it.

edit - I'm not saying we should have tried but it did not fail because it's impossible.

(10-03-2015 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The idea that we could establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, and that would lead to stability in the Middle East, may have been the dumbest idea in the history of Earth.

We turned Japan a nation who rules their leader as a God into a functioning democracy. What we lacked in Iraq was the commitment to do it.

edit - I'm not saying we should have tried but it did not fail because it's impossible.

I agree. You have to be in it for 50 years to make such a thing work.

(10-04-2015 05:46 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The idea that we could establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, and that would lead to stability in the Middle East, may have been the dumbest idea in the history of Earth.

We turned Japan a nation who rules their leader as a God into a functioning democracy. What we lacked in Iraq was the commitment to do it.

edit - I'm not saying we should have tried but it did not fail because it's impossible.

I agree. You have to be in it for 50 years to make such a thing work.

It didn't take 50 years in either Europe or Japan

(10-04-2015 08:59 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 05:46 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The idea that we could establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, and that would lead to stability in the Middle East, may have been the dumbest idea in the history of Earth.

We turned Japan a nation who rules their leader as a God into a functioning democracy. What we lacked in Iraq was the commitment to do it.
edit - I'm not saying we should have tried but it did not fail because it's impossible.

I agree. You have to be in it for 50 years to make such a thing work.

It didn't take 50 years in either Europe or Japan

Europe and Japan are not Iraq. Europe shares many cultural values with the USA. Japan may not share as many cultural values, but the Japanese historically adapt and incorporate elements of other cultures very easily. Iraq does neither.

Let Putin and the Russians be the ones to clean up that schithole of a region. Personally...I see no chance of that happening..but.. have at it.

(10-05-2015 05:49 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Let Putin and the Russians be the ones to clean up that schithole of a region. Personally...I see no chance of that happening..but.. have at it.

Russia learned a lesson with Afghanistan I'd imagine. There are bigger issues at play now other than ISIS, from what I've been reading.