Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Won't happen. This is nuclear war. The US to date has never been at war directly with a nuclear armed nation and for a reason. The threat/promise of mutual destruction. The idea of men in helmets with machine guns and grenades marching into war is unrealistic when dealing with a nuclear armed nation. It ends with the button being pushed. It's why the US had multiple nuclear armed b52s circling the globe during the cold war. This is proven policy. Walk softly, carry a big stick.
So how does the US nuclear arsenal compare to Russia/China?
Because the U.S doesnt know how to mind its EFFING business and wants to be the world's police and get involved in every conflict!
Especially a conflict it appears Obama is making worse...
"U.S. President Barack Obama and his top foreign policy advisers are expected to meet on Friday to consider their military and other options in Syria as Syrian and Russian aircraft continue to pummel Aleppo and other targets, U.S. officials said."
I'm simply not qualified to give the "right" answer to this. One theory I have is that war is profitable for those who build weapons. It's why, I feel, we've been in perpetual warfare. As I understand the issue, Russia wants to back Assad and we don't. But we also don't want to fully back the rebels; we tried that and a faction of them split off into what is now ISIS. Various foreign powers have decided who's they're backing and from a foreign politics stand points, there are essentially no good options.
Well; there is one... abort. **** Syria. It's not our problem. I'm sorry that ISIS is running around Syria and that Assad is a cruel dictator. In what way do we actually intend to help? This is Iraq part II as far as I can tell, and look how well that turned out. Yes, Obama pulling out lead to ISIS so many say the failure is on him, but I'd argue that being in a position where Iraq was dependent on us was the initial failure and that can't all be pinned on Obama. But, he's still part of the problem. Until the government drops the profit driven incentives it has, I fear we'll always be involved in at least a proxy war.
As for Russia, I sort of doubt we'll go to war. War is profitable but a war with an established world power like Russia is a PR nightmare for politicians at this point. They can get by with invading Iraq and Afghanistan with only light criticism because most people don't know anything about these places. Russia is a different story. I don't expect a war and certainly don't want one. As I said, I'd say let Russia do as it wants with Syria. Who are we to get involved at this point? As far as I can tell, our policy has made things worse, not better. Maybe Russia is better suited to handle this than we are? Trump sure thinks so, though his running mate disagrees. And Clinton's doesn't care. Too bad the best candidates for foreign policy won't get elected or were pushed out of the election, some not even entirely democratically.
People around the world have been clamoring for the US to do something about Assad. The guy is a brutal dictator who bombs and gasses his own people. Pictures of dead babies and injured toddlers are heartbreaking. The world always looks to America to intervene in these situations, like we did in Kosovo.
Obama has tried to walk a fine line, obviously not eager to insert American forces, but in the process he has made us look foolish; for example, by drawing a "red line" in the sand and then doing nothing when Assad crossed it. Now that Russia is in there, our options are severely limited. What will happen:
President Hillary - More of the same, a lot of tough talk, maybe some sanctions, but no real action because, as I said, our options are limited
President Trump - Leave Assad alone, because he and the Russians are fighting ISIS, resulting in more brutality by Assad, and a Russian satellite state on the Israeli border. All of which is good for Iran as well.
Because this administration, HRC included, is doing the Muslim Brotherhood's dirty work and wants to oust Assad so the MB can add another state to their Caliphate. ISIS is the MB's army.
Everyone should read the article, which goes a long way toward explaining Russian behavior. Russia is broke, and keeping energy revenue coming in is critical to them.
It was not made clear in the article (Dec 2015) that the US recently entered the Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) export market. This will be a further threat to the Russians, but there is nothing that can be done. The big LNG tankers are roaming the world already and Russia is slowly being left out.
The way back in for the Russians is to complete the gas line and develop a LNG facility in Syria. And that will take years.
Quote:
......“Viewed through a geopolitical and economic lens, the conflict in Syria is not a civil war, but the result of larger international players positioning themselves on the geopolitical chessboard in preparation for the opening of the pipeline,” he noted.
Just as the 2003 Iraq War has been linked to oil in the Persian Gulf, Syria may turn out to be all about gas.
I'm simply not qualified to give the "right" answer to this. One theory I have is that war is profitable for those who build weapons. It's why, I feel, we've been in perpetual warfare. As I understand the issue, Russia wants to back Assad and we don't. But we also don't want to fully back the rebels; we tried that and a faction of them split off into what is now ISIS. Various foreign powers have decided who's they're backing and from a foreign politics stand points, there are essentially no good options.
Well; there is one... abort. **** Syria. It's not our problem. I'm sorry that ISIS is running around Syria and that Assad is a cruel dictator. In what way do we actually intend to help? This is Iraq part II as far as I can tell, and look how well that turned out. Yes, Obama pulling out lead to ISIS so many say the failure is on him, but I'd argue that being in a position where Iraq was dependent on us was the initial failure and that can't all be pinned on Obama. But, he's still part of the problem. Until the government drops the profit driven incentives it has, I fear we'll always be involved in at least a proxy war.
As for Russia, I sort of doubt we'll go to war. War is profitable but a war with an established world power like Russia is a PR nightmare for politicians at this point. They can get by with invading Iraq and Afghanistan with only light criticism because most people don't know anything about these places. Russia is a different story. I don't expect a war and certainly don't want one. As I said, I'd say let Russia do as it wants with Syria. Who are we to get involved at this point? As far as I can tell, our policy has made things worse, not better. Maybe Russia is better suited to handle this than we are? Trump sure thinks so, though his running mate disagrees. And Clinton's doesn't care. Too bad the best candidates for foreign policy won't get elected or were pushed out of the election, some not even entirely democratically.
I think the Russians are trying to make if very clear if we are attacking Syria than there are going to be big problems and likely a war with Russia.
Most likely-probably a pipeline or maybe Assad had plans on issuing a debt free currency outside the hands of the parasitic world banksters and petrodollar hegemony. Golan Heights water too!
Obama/Clinton and Dems disgust me today. Republicans always have.
Lot of things going on there. The Alawites were actually a persecuted minority , but ended up leading a "multicultural rainbow coalition against the majority Sunnis. The sect grew out of Shia and the Twelvers and thus tend to gain more Sympathy from Iran and Shia elements. That is exactly what is going on in Yemen as well. Its Sunni vs Shia.
What so ironic about it is Alawites have a non literal interpretation of the Quran and are not prone to make an Islamic state. They don't meet in Mosques or have any centralized place of gathering. They would be far more compatible with the West than any Saudi.
Lot of things going on there. The Alawites were actually a persecuted minority , but ended up leading a "multicultural rainbow coalition against the majority Sunnis. The sect grew out of Shia and the Twelvers and thus tend to gain more Sympathy from Iran and Shia elements. That is exactly what is going on in Yemen as well. Its Sunni vs Shia.
What so ironic about it is Alawites have a non literal interpretation of the Quran and are not prone to make an Islamic state. They don't meet in Mosques or have any centralized place of gathering. They would be far more compatible with the West than any Saudi.
Bingo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
