Post: #1

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/0...H720150909
I'm sure those of you who follow the news have heard by now- Russia has begun to build airfields and housing for troops inside Syria. So far they haven't confirmed or denied much of anything, but as we saw in Ukraine, telegraphing his plans in advance isn't really Putin's style.

So far we haven't heard much from the US externally, though I'm sure the CIA and other intelligence agencies must be furiously busy at work. US officials asked (perhaps threateningly) the governments of Bulgaria and Greece to not allow Russian transport planes to fly through their airspace. Russia countered by just asking their Iranian buddies to give them overflight access, which the Iranians were more than happy to provide given Russia's support during the nuclear negotiations earlier this summer.

We'll have to wait and see how successful they are in their plans. Their primary goals would include protecting their strategically important naval base in Tartous, Syria and providing some relief to the tired Syrian army forces.

The American position all along has been to do anything needed (including funding Islamist extremist militia) in order to simply get rid of Assad. It looks like the militia who promise to only fight Assad are funded by the West. The ones who are more religious/nationalistic and want nothing to do with Western intervention are branded as "ISIS" and are then designated to be bombed. Well now Russia has put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and raised the stakes. With Russian troops fighting against the Western supported rebels and most likely some American special forces teams, an already volatile situation has somehow gotten even more dangerous. Who knows how the governments of either Russia or the US reacts when their soldiers or their rebels start getting killed.

What are your thoughts?

Post: #2

And the pretext for a full-scale Syrian War continues...

Post: #3

Russia's always been a friend of Syria and trading partner.

I believe they also have naval base their as well.

Of course they're going to help their allies, we do don't we ?

I think Bashar is less of a worry then the rebels/ISIS guys.

Granted there are reports Bashar dropped those barrell bombs and gassed his own people.

I still think the rebels and ISIS are more worriesome.

Post: #4

What has the US got against Assad? He's fighting ISIS

Post: #5

(09-09-2015 04:37 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  What has the US got against Assad? He's fighting ISIS

I think it's because of his own people that he's killed and some serious mass murder accusations levied against him.

Of course everything I hear or see I take with a grain of salt.

Post: #6

In this instance, I'd say let Russia do their thing. Bring stability back to Syria and end the "refugee" exodus. It's a completely different situation than Ukraine.

The idea that democracy should flourish everywhere is garbage. The Middle East has shown they cannot handle it.

Post: #7

I would love to see Russia solve this and protect Europe from turning into the Middle East. I don't think they would be thanked for it either.

Post: #8

Now we get to enjoy the lovely two-faced propaganda against Putin and Russia by NATO when they "empower Assad" to stay in power.

- It wasn't Russia who funded, trained and led IS and Al'Nusra Front.
- It wasn't Russia who destabilised Iraq
- It wasn't Russia who created the Arab Spring

And lets not forget Russians don't really subscribe to the Human Rights Act, they have a lot of experience fighting the most hardcore Jihadis in Chechnya who are in Syria and Iraq in numbers and they are quite fond of pacifying areas they deem troublesome.

NATO isn't going to be happy.

Post: #9

(09-09-2015 04:37 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  What has the US got against Assad? He's fighting ISIS

A disastrous geo-political problem. Basically, nothing ideologically... just 'cos. Assad is a much better, fairer leader than Saddam...but for some reason the entire West has a problem with him. Despite the fact he's secular and keeps the nutters at bay. Hearing George Osborne, a high-up in UK government talk about "evil" ISIS, alongside "evil" Assad makes me angry beyond belief.

The world is fucked. US/NATO/UK are the bad guys.

Post: #10

(09-09-2015 04:37 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  What has the US got against Assad? He's fighting ISIS

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopoli...ne/5337452

This article might answer your question. Looks like it's about religion and oil yet again. More detailed than the media's portrait of Assad as just simply bloodthirsty dictator who mass murdered his own cities. In reality, what happened more or less was that entire towns got taken over by the Islamists, leading the Syrian forces to bomb them to drive away the terrorists, definitely causing some civilian casualties. These casualties were then paraded by the media as proof that Assad was crazy when they never talked about the full back story.
Of course, none of us has the access to real government intelligence so everything is just theories and explanations. The problem is that the mainstream media very effectively convinces people that the angle they are showing is the absolute truth.

Post: #11

(09-09-2015 04:37 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  What has the US got against Assad? He's fighting ISIS

Russia currently exports a lot of its gas to Europe. Outside of the money it makes, this also gives Russia a lot of control over European-Russian relations.

As a result, EU/US/NATO are all for getting another source of gas. There's a proposed gas pipeline that would go through Syria that would cure them of this dependency on Russia.

As Russia's ally, Assad is against this pipeline being constructed.

Every other reason beyond this is a pretext.

Post: #12

(09-09-2015 04:37 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  What has the US got against Assad? He's fighting ISIS

It's about getting rid of an Iranian and Hezbollah ally and non-friendly israeli state.

Post: #13

(09-09-2015 05:06 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Now we get to enjoy the lovely two-faced propaganda against Putin and Russia by NATO when they "empower Assad" to stay in power.

- It wasn't Russia who funded, trained and led IS and Al'Nusra Front.
- It wasn't Russia who destabilised Iraq
- It wasn't Russia who created the Arab Spring

And lets not forget Russians don't really subscribe to the Human Rights Act, they have a lot of experience fighting the most hardcore Jihadis in Chechnya who are in Syria and Iraq in numbers and they are quite fond of pacifying areas they deem troublesome.

NATO isn't going to be happy.

Ironic, isn't it?

Russia basically just called the US's and NATO's bluff. They said the top priority is to get rid of ISIS, but now that Russia has taken it upon itself to do it the West is freaking out.

Why?

While the West does not like ISIS, they provide an effective means of putting pressure on Assad on the Iran-Hezbollah-Shiite axis. ISIS is composed of savages, but is essentialy doing the bidding for the Sunni states and allies.

Yet, with the recent moves by Russia in Syria, Assad isn't going down anytme soon. He's stayed on his feet all this years, just barely, but unless there is a direct NATO attack on Assad he will likely retain power. Plus, Iran is now going to be getting billions of dollars in unfrozen assets because of the nuke deal, so if they're smart they'll use it to refuel Hezbollah and Assad.

This new Cold War is getting quite warm. Proxy wars are one thing, but boots on the ground is another. Russia would be foolish to have a full-scale intervention, and I don't think Putin would be so foolish. That said, they will do everything in their power to keep Assad afloat.

As for my personal opinion, the attempt to get Assad out of power is insane. We did the same exact thing to Gaddhafi and looked at how that turned out! Western leadership seems to be indifferent to the destruction they've done to the Middle East, but now they're starting to wise up (just a wee bit) as migrants are flooding Europe. Yet they still blame this on Assad! He's been in power for 15 years, but the migrant crisis just started not too long ago. In fact, the family of the infamous drowned baby boy were refugees who fled Kobani, a city in northern Syria that was sieged by ISIS (but of course that's an inconvenient truth). Assad is a monster, no question, but is the alternative, an anarchic state composed of 7th century savages a better solution? I think not.

Alas, the West will never change their approach. The interests of their leaders and the Gulf states involve getting rid of Assad and they won't stop until they run out of resources.

Post: #14

(09-09-2015 05:02 PM)Mike5055 Wrote:  In this instance, I'd say let Russia do their thing. Bring stability back to Syria and end the "refugee" exodus. It's a completely different situation than Ukraine.

The idea that democracy should flourish everywhere is garbage. The Middle East has shown they cannot handle it.

This is the crucial thing right here.

Firstly, it shows you how retarded the US policy is. Supposedly the US wants to get rid of ISIS...but it also wants to get rid of Asad, who stands the best chance of defeating ISIS and bringing stability back to the region.

It's completely schizophrenic.

What is the reason for this mentally ill policy?

It's the assumption that democracy should come to Syria, because that worked out so well in Iraq.

This whole clusterfuck is, once again, the disastrous results of the drive for globalist liberalism. Far from being "multicultural" and "diverse," globalist liberalism destroys cultural diversity.

Post: #15

The only way to end this conflict as a foreign power is to completely flatten Syria, destroy all armed opposition beyond a shadow of a doubt, and impose your rule with an iron fist.

You see half of Syria is already displaced and yet the flighting does not stop. Syria is reduced to rubble and the fighting does not stop. Ending this conflict will require incredibly amounts of bloodshed to completely neuter any and all armed opposition and set up a strong enough state that can truly defend itself.

It will not be pretty.

Hopefully though Russia chooses this path instead of meekly supporting this or that faction, engaging in limited strikes, and basically just becoming a participant in a multi-way civil war without end.

Post: #16

(09-09-2015 05:01 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(09-09-2015 04:37 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  What has the US got against Assad? He's fighting ISIS

I think it's because of his own people that he's killed and some serious mass murder accusations levied against him.

Of course everything I hear or see I take with a grain of salt.

Do you really think our leaders care about mass murder? His number one crime? He tried to make an oil backed currency (which would undercut oil being sold in dollars). A lot of other horrible shit, but we've supported worse.

Post: #17

Wipe Out ISIS

Post: #18

^ Sure, but what really is ISIS?

Post: #19

(09-10-2015 12:45 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  ^ Sure, but what really is ISIS?

CIA funded extremists fighting a regime they want to topple ?

Post: #20

----------------------------------------

Post: #21

Big mistake. You think they would have learned from Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan that you cannot impose "democracy" on Middle Eastern peoples by military force. That just confuses them. The only way to keep such a country in order is a brutal dictator with a strong military and police.

The last such leader we have is Assad, so I say allow Russia to crush IS and bring back the Assad regime.

Post: #22

(09-10-2015 04:14 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  Big mistake. You think they would have learned from Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan that you cannot impose "democracy" on Middle Eastern peoples by military force. That just confuses them. The only way to keep such a country in order is a brutal dictator with a strong military and police.

The last such leader we have is Assad, so I say allow Russia to crush IS and bring back the Assad regime.

There certainly seems to be a bigger issue/reason the elites are pushing for these disastrous decisions. They simply cannot be this inept and out of touch with the obvious end result.

Post: #23

(09-10-2015 04:30 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  There certainly seems to be a bigger issue/reason the elites are pushing for these disastrous decisions. They simply cannot be this inept and out of touch with the obvious end result.

I do not think they care about the end result, other than "more power to me me me !"

Post: #24

(09-10-2015 04:31 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 04:30 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  There certainly seems to be a bigger issue/reason the elites are pushing for these disastrous decisions. They simply cannot be this inept and out of touch with the obvious end result.

I do not think they care about the end result, other than "more power to me me me !"

I think it is cause as much chaos as possible so that people turn to a one world socialist/communist govt. to "save them".

Post: #25

----------------------------------------