Russia to the ME

[Ironcitysteelers]

Let's get everyone there big party time.

Washington (CNN)Kremlin officials have dismissed allegations of a major Russian military deployment to Syria, after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry raised the issue with his Russian counterpart.

Reports circulating in recent days quoted unnamed Western diplomats saying a Russian expeditionary force is already in Syria to prepare for the arrival of an "aerial contingent" of fighter jets and attack helicopters for "strikes against ISIS targets in Syria."

In a telephone call over the weekend, Kerry warned the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, that -- if the reports are true -- the Russian military presence "could further escalate the conflict, lead to greater loss of innocent lives, increase refugee flows and risk confrontation" with an (anti-ISIS) coalition operating in Syria, according to a statement from the U.S. State Department.

But the Kremlin is categorically denying as "premature" the allegations that it has any military ambitions in Syria, although it admits sending weapons and advisers to assist its Syrian ally, President Bashar al Assad.

The Kremlin - -which has a strategic naval base at Tartus in Syria -- has also made no secret of its deep alarm at the prospect of its key ally in the Middle East being toppled. If Assad falls, it worries, so too may Russian influence in the region.

Concerned about its own simmering Islamist insurgency in its restive North Caucasus region, the Kremlin also has genuine security concerns about ISIS.

Hundreds of Russian citizens have already joined the militant group, which identifies Russia as a key enemy and has vowed attacks to avenge Moscow's longstanding support for the Syrian government.

 

[Spike]

Obama is hopping mad that Russia wants to help Assad kill his Muslim Brotherhood "rebel” buddies in Syria.


Go Russia!

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

Russia knew back when they went into the ME that **** can't be fixed and muzzies are hell bent on killing everyone that's not them. Too bad our office doesn't study.

 

[Spike]

Putin knows he can anything he wants in Syria, Obama would never do anything to stop him

Russia sends ships, aircraft and forces to Syria: U.S. officials

Russia has sent two tank landing ships and additional aircraft to Syria in the past day or so and has deployed a small number of forces there, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, in the latest signs of a military buildup that has put Washington on edge.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKCN0R91TA20150909

 

[Spike]

Russia knew back when they went into the ME that **** can't be fixed and muzzies are hell bent on killing everyone that's not them. Too bad our office doesn't study.

It seems the only ones fighting Assad are Jihadists. Only Kerry and Obama will cry if the Russians crush them.

 

[IndySteel]

Go Russia! Kill all those terrorists! Obama should be embarrassed. But he's not. Spike nailed it, he's afraid for his terrorist brothers.

 

[Confluence]

Putin 17, Bomma 0

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

**** you BO and your Isis "advisors".

Washington (CNN)America's top diplomat called his Russian counterpart Wednesday to warn that Moscow's military buildup of troops in Syria could escalate the bloody conflict there that has engulfed the region for more than four years.

The U.S. has been watching Russia's movement of military personnel with concern for several days, though the Foreign Ministry only confirmed the buildup Wednesday.

There are "Russian military experts in Syria who are instructing (the Syrians) on the use of the military systems being delivered" to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a close Moscow ally, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement.

Russia "has long been supplying arms and military equipment to Syria in accordance with bilateral contracts," she said.

That confirmation follows repeated warnings from Secretary of State John Kerry to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about how such activity could intensify the raging civil war there.

In a call to Lavrov Wednesday, Kerry "reiterated our concern about these reports of Russian military activities, or buildup if you will, in Syria and made very clear our view that, if true and borne out, could lead to greater violence and even more instability in Syria," State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters.

 

[hamster]

If there is one thing that we learned in the Middle East, is that despotic dictators are preferable to the alternative. Assad is an animal, but ISIS is far worse. Let the Russians take care of business now. They sure took lenough time.

 

[Tibs]

Posting a map from Institute for the Study of War. Interesting to note the Russian positions, marked with green. Boots on the ground.

Putin enters the frey at a critical point. If you do the math, the Russians - in supporting Assad - are fighting our common foe in ISIS. Smells like the 1940's a little, doesn't it? A Russian-U.S. joint-op against ISIS/Al Quada? Would never happen, lol. but would get the job done.

Unlike us, the Russians are legendary for overextending their stay after military victory. The Syrians better start brushing up on their Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. If succesful, Putin would be looked at as a hero to many, and he knows it. An end to hostilities in Syria would pretty much end the refugee crisis in Europe. The Middle East is a powder keg Putin evidently is not afraid to step into. Not sure I share his exuberance, but the fact is, ISIS are a bunch of low-life degenerate terrorists - basically heavily-armed militia maurading around unabated -- beheading, raping, torturing. It's a shame the Russians - of all nations - are the ones to step up to try to put an end to it.

I see no difference in what's happening here than what the situation was in Bosnia. NATO put an end to that real fast, just went in and shut it down. Given the massive humanitarian crisis that it's become, I'm surprised world leaders - including Obama - haven't stepped up and tried to resolve this. And into that void steps Vladimir Putin.

But the most shocking thing to me is that all of this is happening right on the doorstep of Turkey, a full-fledged NATO member. The fact they'd let the Russians in this close to the border is mind-numbing.

 

[Rod Farva]

Not Russia's fault.........they were practically sucked in there by the vacuum resulting from Obama's rapid retreat.

 

[deljzc]

The difference now is Russia has no moral qualms about backing and supporting dictatorial rulers in 3rd world regions.

The United States has sort of evolved into being very unsure about what to do in these areas of the world. If we back revolutionaries against dictators and then democracy fails (which is bound to happen) and anarchy ensues as each gang tries to establish rule what is the US policy? I don't think anyone knows.

It was so much easier when the enemy was "Communism" rather than "Islam" because being against Communism wasn't racist or prejudicial.

We justified so many questionable "friendships" during the 1950's to 1980's in the name of containing communism and stopping USSR influence that we got to a point we had to sort of look in the mirror at all the horrors those friendships caused.

Our attempts to correct those "friendships" has just left power voids around the world that have dissolved into extremism (with mostly Islamic leanings) and lack of strong centralized governments and huge pockets of anarchy where militant groups can do anything they want.

I don't really have good answers for all this. Do we go back to supporting military/dictatorial rule in much of the world? Do we sell them weapons (rather than Russia) to gain their allegiances? Do we look the other way when they cruelly enforce their non-democratic ways?

Can we instead police the regions with military bases, lots of boots on the ground and support while they "learn" democracy? That's the more expensive option for sure I would assume.

I'm not sure the path of "letting them figure it out for themselves" is a realistic choice.

 

[Omar10213245]

Obama is hopping mad that Russia wants to help Assad kill his Muslim Brotherhood "rebel” buddies in Syria.


Go Russia!

Both (the isis rebels and the assad family) need to be taken out.

And **** russia

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The difference now is Russia has no moral qualms about backing and supporting dictatorial rulers in 3rd world regions.

The United States has sort of evolved into being very unsure about what to do in these areas of the world. If we back revolutionaries against dictators and then democracy fails (which is bound to happen) and anarchy ensues as each gang tries to establish rule what is the US policy? I don't think anyone knows.

It was so much easier when the enemy was "Communism" rather than "Islam" because being against Communism wasn't racist or prejudicial.

We justified so many questionable "friendships" during the 1950's to 1980's in the name of containing communism and stopping USSR influence that we got to a point we had to sort of look in the mirror at all the horrors those friendships caused.

Our attempts to correct those "friendships" has just left power voids around the world that have dissolved into extremism (with mostly Islamic leanings) and lack of strong centralized governments and huge pockets of anarchy where militant groups can do anything they want.

I don't really have good answers for all this. Do we go back to supporting military/dictatorial rule in much of the world? Do we sell them weapons (rather than Russia) to gain their allegiances? Do we look the other way when they cruelly enforce their non-democratic ways?

Can we instead police the regions with military bases, lots of boots on the ground and support while they "learn" democracy? That's the more expensive option for sure I would assume.

I'm not sure the path of "letting them figure it out for themselves" is a realistic choice.

The other thing is that back in the day we could sorta wait out the Soviets because sooner or later they would run out of money. These days Russia has enough oil and gas money that they can afford to get involved in whatever they want for as long as they want. Putin doesn't like the Muzzies any more than we do, remember Chechnya is on his doorstep, but the Rooskies still have a knee-jerk reaction to side with whoever the U.S. is not siding with, whether it's in their best interest or not.

 

[Vader]

I hate to say it but you need strong arm dictators in that part of the world. This administration is a clusterfuck of soft "power". You have to use proxy power within that region. The only thing they understand is power. When the Arab spring erupted BHO allowed the entire region to fall into the void. Khadafi had given up all his nuclear ambitions and BHO allowed him to be removed. It sent a clear message to the entire ME that corporation with the U.S. didn't guarantee you anything and that we are un-trust worth. I was against removing SH as well. You needed a proxy against Iran.

They also should have left Syria alone and let Assad deal with it. BHO drawing his line in the sand made him look like an ignorant fool. Hell they still have chemical weapons. ISIS got a hold of some of them. I thought Russia was going to take them all? I guess that didn't work out so well? This is what happens when you have foreign policy being ran but a bunch of elites and no nothings. Clinton was probably the worst pick for Sec. of State because she knows nothing about foreign affairs. Which came to fruition when Benghazi came to light. She had no idea what to do. Everything became political because that's all she knows. The stupid Russian reset button, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and the entire middle east are worse off.

 

[deljzc]

I hate to say it but you need strong arm dictators in that part of the world. This administration is a clusterfuck of soft "power". You have to use proxy power within that region. The only thing they understand is power. When the Arab spring erupted BHO allowed the entire region to fall into the void. Khadafi had given up all his nuclear ambitions and BHO allowed him to be removed. It sent a clear message to the entire ME that corporation with the U.S. didn't guarantee you anything and that we are un-trust worth. I was against removing SH as well. You needed a proxy against Iran.

They also should have left Syria alone and let Assad deal with it. BHO drawing his line in the sand made him look like an ignorant fool. Hell they still have chemical weapons. ISIS got a hold of some of them. I thought Russia was going to take them all? I guess that didn't work out so well? This is what happens when you have foreign policy being ran but a bunch of elites and no nothings. Clinton was probably the worst pick for Sec. of State because she knows nothing about foreign affairs. Which came to fruition when Benghazi came to light. She had no idea what to do. Everything became political because that's all she knows. The stupid Russian reset button, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and the entire middle east are worse off.

That's going to be a tough sell in this world of instant access to news and very uncensored (and politicized) media.

I was actually the opposite. I wanted to invade Iraq because I wanted to set up Military bases and a foothold right smack dab in the middle of the region. If we can keep 50,000 troops in Germany and 30,000 troops in South Korea, how is the Middle East not worth that type of investment? I never realized keeping troops there would become so politicized.

I also liked the idea of creating a military target for Islamic extremists. Yes, some of our troops would die each year. You'd try to keep it to a minimum, but in the first couple decades it will likely happen. But I'd rather have them be trained to be a target rather than civilians, European/American cities, women and children. In the whole scheme of things it would be a lot less loss of life and over the LONG term (thinking there will be another terrorist attack on our soil), might actually be less American casualties.

Yes, we would have had to invest in Iraq like we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. We would have had to diplomatically demanded financial assistance from our allies in the region AND Europe, all because our presence would prevent exactly what is happening now with the migrant crisis.

We should be in Baghdad and Mosul with the intent to gradually assimilate and co-exist our culture into theirs. Set the example. Enforce democracy and voter rights. Pressure bipartisan governments with representation for all sides.

Unfortunately, once we left, that's all gone. You have a centralized, militarily-centric Shiite government that has walled themselves into south-eastern Iraq and is closely allied with Iran. You have the Kurds of the northeast acting like their own government and militarizing to defend themselves from ISIS. And you have the chaos of extremism and gang violence along most of the Euphrates and Tigris river basins from Baghdad north/northwest based on radical Sunni Sharia law. And no one in the region cares enough to do anything about it.

 

[Vader]

All wars are different and I'd never compare Iraq with WWII. Both Germany and Japan had singular cultures. Iraqi was already separated between Shiites and Sunnis. Also the U.S. was cultural similar to both (westernized). Middle Eastern muslims are stuck in the dark ages and have no compulsion to change. There is no helping them.

You need strong men dominating the country. Then you fight proxy wars to keep them in check. I don't want a base anywhere around Iraq. You don't allow them to come into the country and you keep them there. It's a lost cause. Stay out and stay away.

 

[Confluence]

That's going to be a tough sell in this world of instant access to news and very uncensored (and politicized) media.

I was actually the opposite. I wanted to invade Iraq because I wanted to set up Military bases and a foothold right smack dab in the middle of the region. If we can keep 50,000 troops in Germany and 30,000 troops in South Korea, how is the Middle East not worth that type of investment? I never realized keeping troops there would become so politicized.

I also liked the idea of creating a military target for Islamic extremists. Yes, some of our troops would die each year. You'd try to keep it to a minimum, but in the first couple decades it will likely happen. But I'd rather have them be trained to be a target rather than civilians, European/American cities, women and children. In the whole scheme of things it would be a lot less loss of life and over the LONG term (thinking there will be another terrorist attack on our soil), might actually be less American casualties.

Yes, we would have had to invest in Iraq like we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. We would have had to diplomatically demanded financial assistance from our allies in the region AND Europe, all because our presence would prevent exactly what is happening now with the migrant crisis.

We should be in Baghdad and Mosul with the intent to gradually assimilate and co-exist our culture into theirs. Set the example. Enforce democracy and voter rights. Pressure bipartisan governments with representation for all sides.

Unfortunately, once we left, that's all gone. You have a centralized, militarily-centric Shiite government that has walled themselves into south-eastern Iraq and is closely allied with Iran. You have the Kurds of the northeast acting like their own government and militarizing to defend themselves from ISIS. And you have the chaos of extremism and gang violence along most of the Euphrates and Tigris river basins from Baghdad north/northwest based on radical Sunni Sharia law. And no one in the region cares enough to do anything about it.

Just like Carter's CF in Iran in late 70s, this mess in Iraq really ****** up a golden opportunity to have a major long term influence, like in Germany, Japan and Korea (notice anything about their productive capabilities post- US base development?). Having a forward air capability in Iraq would have been almost as good as having the same in Iran, with the effect of helping to box in the Indians and Chinese, and keep the Russians up north. This is what the long term US Economy is based on, and not having that grip on a significant part of the world will continue to eat at the US in terms of respect, and the value of the dollar, which is really the proxy for the US economy.

Dumb *****.

 

[deljzc]

Part of me also wanted to be in Iraq so we could maybe get the **** out of Saudi Arabia.

I'm tired of their **** not stinking and us being so buddy-buddy with that totalitarian, bigoted monarchy. If we moved our main air/military bases into a democracy-in-making Iraq, we could have started diplomatically putting pressure on the rest of the Arab world to start hanging up some of the more radical part of Sharia law (like stoning people) and slowly push for woman's rights and more religious freedoms.

Granted we're talking about taking 100 years, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Eventually there WILL be a revolt in Saudi Arabia against that regime and I have no clue which side we'll be on because we have so few other allies in the region right now.

 

[Vader]

Part of me also wanted to be in Iraq so we could maybe get the **** out of Saudi Arabia.

I'm tired of their **** not stinking and us being so buddy-buddy with that totalitarian, bigoted monarchy. If we moved our main air/military bases into a democracy-in-making Iraq, we could have started diplomatically putting pressure on the rest of the Arab world to start hanging up some of the more radical part of Sharia law (like stoning people) and slowly push for woman's rights and more religious freedoms.

Granted we're talking about taking 100 years, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Eventually there WILL be a revolt in Saudi Arabia against that regime and I have no clue which side we'll be on because we have so few other allies in the region right now.

The left was never going to allow a permanent base in Iraq. I'd rather let them be irrelevant by finding our own oil, working on non-oil based solutions and staying the hell out of the ME. They are a lost cause IMHO. I'm just tired of watching the U.S. be responsible for everything in the world. Time for someone else to step up or at least pay for it.