Democratic Primary Push for White House

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Agreed. The Syria withdrawl has been bothering me lately. I thoght we should have stayed at least as monitors to keep the Kurds from being crushed and the Dems and liberals were screaming how this is genocide for the US to pull out.

I was inundated with Syria refuge crisis articles and politicians taking turns talking into the microphone about the greatest humanitarian crisis of all time ...

Now you hear nothing. Idlib is now being fought over by Russia/Syria with Turkey probably backing off. This is causing 800k to 2 million people, families, being forced to evacuate and just walk towards the Turkey border where Turkey already has like 4 million syrian refugees in camps.

Where is the continued 24/7 coverage of this? where are those so concerned politicians now?

If the Obama Administration would have put up the No Fly Zone and armed Kurds...This would have been over 3-4 years ago and Syria would be having elections now.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

If the Obama Administration would have put up the No Fly Zone and armed Kurds...This would have been over 3-4 years ago and Syria would be having elections now.

I dont think even the mighty USA can go an unilaterally enforce a no fly zone in a foreign country .. restricting that country from flying in their own air space. Russia already buzzes our guys when we are flying in international air space.

No way Russia and Syria would have abided by it, creates way to many instances where "something" could happen. A no fly zone sounded nice but I dont think it would be realistic.

Arming the kurds - I feel like we did but said we were only sending defensive material and not tanks etc but we hooked them up as much as we could. They had those shoulder launcher things to take down helicopters and tanks. Turkey and the Kurds is a delicate relationship and I think we did have to balance helping the Kurds fight ISIS while also limiting the disdain from Turkey.

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

Middle east diplomacy? I dont think there are any "best case" scenarios re diplomacy. You could argue pros and cons for no fly zone or complete pull out or maintaining a monitor presence. All would be right but also wrong.

Damned if you, damned if you dont.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

I dont think even the mighty USA can go an unilaterally enforce a no fly zone in a foreign country .. restricting that country from flying in their own air space. Russia already buzzes our guys when we are flying in international air space.

No way Russia and Syria would have abided by it, creates way to many instances where "something" could happen. A no fly zone sounded nice but I dont think it would be realistic.

Arming the kurds - I feel like we did but said we were only sending defensive material and not tanks etc but we hooked them up as much as we could. They had those shoulder launcher things to take down helicopters and tanks. Turkey and the Kurds is a delicate relationship and I think we did have to balance helping the Kurds fight ISIS while also limiting the disdain from Turkey.

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

Middle east diplomacy? I dont think there are any "best case" scenarios re diplomacy. You could argue pros and cons for no fly zone or complete pull out or maintaining a monitor presence. All would be right but also wrong.

Damned if you, damned if you dont.

Ohhh you are assuming Russia would have come any way? Really? The Obama doctrine of strength wouldn’t have kept the Russians Out? Also Russia wasn’t what kept Syria from hanging on, it was Iran doing constant flying in arms and reinforcements....something the no fly zone would have kept out. Especially after Iraq refused to let them reinforce over their country.

But why are you choosing to speak about the Syrian situation now, say post 2016. Why don’t you address it from the beginning where the policy laid the foundation of failure?

Obama completely fucked up Syria situation.

And if you want to talk Russia, let’s talk about the Obama administration and their constant ass kicking Putin gave Obama. It’s like trump never gave Ukraine lethal arms support, killed Russian troops in Syria and imposed sanctions on Russia

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Ohhh you are assuming Russia would have come always? Really? The Obama doctrine of strength wouldn’t have kept the
Out? Also Russia wasn’t what kept Syria from hanging on, it was Iran doing constant flying in arms and reinforcements....

But why are you choosing to speak about the Syrian situation now, say post 2016. Why don’t you address it from the beginning where the policy laid the foundation of failure?

Obama completely fucked up Syria situation.

My memory (without re-reading the hundreds of articles ive read over the past years) was that Al-Assad was very close to be thrown out until the last minute when Russia provided air cover and that drastically changed things.

im talking about Syria now ... because it is now. In 2016, I was talking about Syria .. in 2016. Not sure if i follow.

Obama and the US didnt want to get sucked into another objectiveless occupation like Iraq and Afgahnistan. I prefer that policy, so does your boy Trump.

if Obama went hard and bombed Syria and demanded no fly zones etc and something happened, people like you Chico would be screaming bloody murder. Obama went de-escalate and people like you are screaming.

Chico - im projecting here but I think you would attack any position Obama or any Dem took or takes. its okay though, there are many people on the left who have their "hate blinders" on as well and will scream at any little thing Trump or republicans do.

and now i find myself attacking another american for their political belief system and I feel like an asshole bc I try really hard not to judge others.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

My memory (without re-reading the hundreds of articles ive read over the past years) was that Al-Assad was very close to be thrown out until the last minute when Russia provided air cover and that drastically changed things.

im talking about Syria now ... because it is now. In 2016, I was talking about Syria .. in 2016. Not sure if i follow.

Obama and the US didnt want to get sucked into another objectiveless occupation like Iraq and Afgahnistan. I prefer that policy, so does your boy Trump.

if Obama went hard and bombed Syria and demanded no fly zones etc and something happened, people like you Chico would be screaming bloody murder. Obama went de-escalate and people like you are screaming.

Chico - im projecting here but I think you would attack any position Obama or any Dem took or takes. its okay though, there are many people on the left who have their "hate blinders" on as well and will scream at any little thing Trump or republicans do.

and now i find myself attacking another american for their political belief system and I feel like an asshole bc I try really hard not to judge others.

When I hear the term ‘useful idiot’ and then think from a policy perspective in how two administrations have acted towards Syria and Russia...the narrative simply falls flat. Especially when I hear Obama tell Mitt Romney in the debates say the 1980s call and they want their foreign policy back...when Mitt correctly pointed out the Russian government was the biggest threat to the US.

The Russians were “mid-game” when it comes to the entire Syria civil war context. Go back and look at the timelines. No fly zone was on the table and have proven to be extremely effective strategy.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The Russians were “mid-game” when it comes to the entire Syria civil war context. Go back and look at the timelines. No fly zone was on the table and have proven to be extremely effective strategy.

If "mid game" means Russia had one foot in, one foot out and Russia could be swayed either way, i agree with that. No fly zone in N Iraq is different than Syria.

Hillary Clinton ran on a "no fly zone" policy in Syria in 2016. I think the risks would be to great and get us further complicated in the complicated Syria civil war.

-------

Retired senior US military pilots are increasingly alarmed that Hillary Clinton’s proposal for “no-fly zones” in Syria could lead to a military confrontation with Russia that could escalate to levels that were previously unthinkable in the post-cold war world.

The proposal of no-fly zones has been fiercely debated in Washington for the past five years, but has never attracted significant enthusiasm from the military because of the risk to pilots from Syrian air defenses and the presence of Russian warplanes.

Many in US national security circles consider the risk of an aerial confrontation with the Russians to be severe.

“I wouldn’t put it past them to shoot down an American aircraft,” said James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, on Tuesday in response to a question from the Guardian at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Those who have patrolled no-fly zones over the relatively freer skies of Bosnia and Saddam-era Iraq fear that a President Clinton would oblige the US to what one retired US air force three-star general described as an indefinite “air occupation”. Such a move would risk the lives of US pilots – and dare confrontation with a Russian military which is more aggressive than it has been in years.

Critics of the plan also question how using US military power to establish and police a safe space for beleaguered Syrian civilians would contribute to the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad – the explicit goal of US policy in Syria.

“If she is not politically posturing, it’s going to be a disaster. I hope it’s political posturing,” said John Kuehn, a retired navy officer who flew no-fly zone missions over Bosnia and Iraq. Kuehn who called denying an adversary its airspace “the cocktail party military application of power of choice”.

David Deptula, a retired air force lieutenant general who commanded the no-fly zone operations over northern Iraq in 1998 and 1999, said the Russians were a “complicating factor” but considered the problems with a no-fly zone to be more fundamental.

“Until a strategy that defines the desired end-state is clearly laid out in a comprehensive way, it’s difficult to advocate for a no-fly zone,” said Deptula.

“Right now, the way it’s being discussed, it’s a solution in search of a strategy. Until coalition powers define what it is they wish to accomplish, banding about a solution like a no-fly zone is a non-starter.”

The challenges for a no-fly zone over Syria outstrip those the US has faced over Libya, Bosnia and Iraq. Assad’s surface-to-air missiles, protecting the Mediterranean coast and southern regions the regime still controls, were formidable before the recent Russian addition of what Clapper, a former air force general, called “very advanced” S-300 and S-400 systems that can blanket the majority of Syrian airspace with missiles.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-russia-us-war

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

If "mid game" means Russia had one foot in, one foot out and Russia could be swayed either way, i agree with that. No fly zone in N Iraq is different than Syria.

Hillary Clinton ran on a "no fly zone" policy in Syria in 2016. I think the risks would be to great and get us further complicated in the complicated Syria civil war.

-------

Retired senior US military pilots are increasingly alarmed that Hillary Clinton’s proposal for “no-fly zones” in Syria could lead to a military confrontation with Russia that could escalate to levels that were previously unthinkable in the post-cold war world.

The proposal of no-fly zones has been fiercely debated in Washington for the past five years, but has never attracted significant enthusiasm from the military because of the risk to pilots from Syrian air defenses and the presence of Russian warplanes.

Many in US national security circles consider the risk of an aerial confrontation with the Russians to be severe.

“I wouldn’t put it past them to shoot down an American aircraft,” said James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, on Tuesday in response to a question from the Guardian at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Those who have patrolled no-fly zones over the relatively freer skies of Bosnia and Saddam-era Iraq fear that a President Clinton would oblige the US to what one retired US air force three-star general described as an indefinite “air occupation”. Such a move would risk the lives of US pilots – and dare confrontation with a Russian military which is more aggressive than it has been in years.

Critics of the plan also question how using US military power to establish and police a safe space for beleaguered Syrian civilians would contribute to the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad – the explicit goal of US policy in Syria.

“If she is not politically posturing, it’s going to be a disaster. I hope it’s political posturing,” said John Kuehn, a retired navy officer who flew no-fly zone missions over Bosnia and Iraq. Kuehn who called denying an adversary its airspace “the cocktail party military application of power of choice”.

David Deptula, a retired air force lieutenant general who commanded the no-fly zone operations over northern Iraq in 1998 and 1999, said the Russians were a “complicating factor” but considered the problems with a no-fly zone to be more fundamental.

“Until a strategy that defines the desired end-state is clearly laid out in a comprehensive way, it’s difficult to advocate for a no-fly zone,” said Deptula.

“Right now, the way it’s being discussed, it’s a solution in search of a strategy. Until coalition powers define what it is they wish to accomplish, banding about a solution like a no-fly zone is a non-starter.”

The challenges for a no-fly zone over Syria outstrip those the US has faced over Libya, Bosnia and Iraq. Assad’s surface-to-air missiles, protecting the Mediterranean coast and southern regions the regime still controls, were formidable before the recent Russian addition of what Clapper, a former air force general, called “very advanced” S-300 and S-400 systems that can blanket the majority of Syrian airspace with missiles.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-russia-us-war

Look I don't want to post quotes of the effectiveness of it or proponents of it advising for it. But if you think the Syrian Government would have challenged our resolve for implementing it...lets be honest, they had their hands full and could not have handling an air campaign against us...yeah, not happening, not close.

Plus, the no fly zone is extremely....flexible lets say. We chose how and when...and why. Before the Russians were 100 involved it should have been done...like ive stated the IRANIANS were the ones keeping Assad in power, not the Russians. When the Russians made the commitment...it trumped Obama. It was game over.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Ohhh you are assuming Russia would have come always? Really? The Obama doctrine of strength wouldn’t have kept the

Out? Also Russia wasn’t what kept Syria from hanging on, it was Iran doing constant flying in arms and reinforcements....something the no fly zone would have kept out. Especially after Iraq refused to let them reinforce over their country.



But why are you choosing to speak about the Syrian situation now, say post 2016. Why don’t you address it from the beginning where the policy laid the foundation of failure?



Obama completely fucked up Syria situation.



And if you want to talk Russia, let’s talk about the Obama administration and their constant ass kicking Putin gave Obama. It’s like trump never gave Ukraine lethal arms support, killed Russian troops in Syria and imposed sanctions on Russia

I think you are making assumptions about sunny. He wasn't slamming Trump (I don't think) or rushing to Obama's praise.

Moreso he was, again I think, pointing out how the media and politicians pick and choose their story of the day.

It is a truly sad thing to see these refugees and know that they are suffering partially because US policy in the mideast for so long has been a mess. Backing then not backing, encouraging popular uprisings then watching them get pounded back into submission. We as a nation can not be everywhere, and when our leaders think we can, bad things end up happening to the people on the ground.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think you are making assumptions about sunny. He wasn't slamming Trump (I don't think) or rushing to Obama's praise.

Moreso he was, again I think, pointing out how the media and politicians pick and choose their story of the day.

It is a truly sad thing to see these refugees and know that they are suffering partially because US policy in the mideast for so long has been a mess. Backing then not backing, encouraging popular uprisings then watching them get pounded back into submission. We as a nation can not be everywhere, and when our leaders think we can, bad things end up happening to the people on the ground.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Yes that was my original intent. the Dems and media portrayed the abrupt Trump pull out as some genocide and it was in the news 24/7 but now .. its crickets from the dems and media.

I do believe the Kurds were politically useful to the dems for a week, they feigned concern and outrage at trump .. but now where is that same concern for the refugees? It wasnt an instant massacre that the Dems predicted so it lost its political use?

I guess Im more annoyed at the media, I have to actually hunt for current syria articles vs before it was every where. Where are those embedded reporters? Wheres the horror of barrell bombs being dropped on civilian hospitals? its still happenening, its till sick but the US and media "have moved one" it seems. Convenient.

im ranting right now .. cathartic i suppose

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Yes that was my original intent. the Dems and media portrayed the abrupt Trump pull out as some genocide and it was in the news 24/7 but now .. its crickets from the dems and media.



I do believe the Kurds were politically useful to the dems for a week, they feigned concern and outrage at trump .. but now where is that same concern for the refugees? It wasnt an instant massacre that the Dems predicted so it lost its political use?



I guess Im more annoyed at the media, I have to actually hunt for current syria articles vs before it was every where. Where are those embedded reporters? Wheres the horror of barrell bombs being dropped on civilian hospitals? its still happenening, its till sick but the US and media "have moved one" it seems. Convenient.



im ranting right now .. cathartic i suppose

I actually had to watch aljazeera news for decent, "non biased", coverage of the situation. And it actually did seem non-biased from what I could tell.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Ohhh you are assuming Russia would have come any way? Really? The Obama doctrine of strength wouldn’t have kept the Russians Out? Also Russia wasn’t what kept Syria from hanging on, it was Iran doing constant flying in arms and reinforcements....something the no fly zone would have kept out. Especially after Iraq refused to let them reinforce over their country.

But why are you choosing to speak about the Syrian situation now, say post 2016. Why don’t you address it from the beginning where the policy laid the foundation of failure?

Obama completely fucked up Syria situation.

And if you want to talk Russia, let’s talk about the Obama administration and their constant ass kicking Putin gave Obama. It’s like trump never gave Ukraine lethal arms support, killed Russian troops in Syria and imposed sanctions on Russia

I agree. Obama fucked up the Syria situation.

Now what?

How do you fix it? Do you even care about fixing it? If not, why are you here, except to point out who needs to be blamed for the entire thing.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

I agree. Obama fucked up the Syria situation.

Now what?

How do you fix it? Do you even care about fixing it? If not, why are you here, except to point out who needs to be blamed for the entire thing.

So trump armed the Kurds, defeated isis....are you asking what else should we do now?

Mooby, you just were fucking telling 6 weeks ago trump had started the 3 world war with Iran and now suddenly you want us embedded in Syria again? Can we even get any policy consistency? Dude took out one of the top state sponsor terrorist in the world and the media and dems are screaming that was a bad move...

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So trump armed the Kurds, defeated isis....are you asking what else should we do now?



Mooby, you just were fucking telling 6 weeks ago trump had started the 3 world war with Iran and now suddenly you want us embedded in Syria again? Can we even get any policy consistency? Dude took out one of the top state sponsor terrorist in the world and the media and dems are screaming that was a bad move...

Chico, I am guessing a nerve got hit. No one on here is calling for us to be re-imbedded in Syria.

But you taking off like that is what I was talking about where Russia's biggest goal is to keep us on razors edge barking at the other side.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Chico, I am guessing a nerve got hit. No one on here is calling for us to be re-imbedded in Syria.

But you taking off like that is what I was talking about where Russia's biggest goal is to keep us on razors edge barking at the other side.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I hate revisionist history and Im tired of the bullshit headline of Trump/Russia connection. Its the biggest fake news story of our lifetime. The policy of the Trump administration versus the previous administration...its obvious, that Russians would prefer a Democratic lead country. Its aint close.