September 30, 2015

Russia Begins Bombings In Syria
— DrewM

Turns out the Russians didn't send troops and aircraft to Syria for a fall vacation.

Russia has conducted its first airstrike in Syria, near the city of Homs, a senior U.S. official told CNN on Wednesday .

...

"We see some very sophisticated air defenses going into those airfields. We see some very sophisticated air-to-air aircraft going into these airfields. I have not seen ISIL flying any airplanes that require SA-15s or SA-22s (Russian missiles). I have not seen ISIL flying any airplanes that require sophisticated air-to-air capabilities," Gen. Phillip Breedlove, NATO's supreme allied commander, said on Monday.

"I'm looking at the capabilities and the capacities that are being created and I determine from that what might be their intent. These very sophisticated air defense capabilities are not about ISIL. They're about something else," he concluded.

Yes, it's about keeping us out of Syria. The whole point of the exercise is to save Assad's regime (whether or not that means saving Assad personally is to be seen).

I know people are upset about this and think Obama should have done something.

Here's my question...what's that something entail?

Mostly they will say we should have created a no-fly zone. Ok. And we'd do something that would help the al-Qaeda rebels and ISIL forces why?

The Russian advantage in Syria is that they have an ally there. They are happy to save Assad. He's a long time client and the Russians want to keep access to the naval base at Tartus.

Our position in Syria was limited because no matter how many sides there are in the Syrian civil war, and there are many, none of them help us. No matter which side we came in on, we'd be helping an enemy of ours. There simply is, and never was, a moderate side in Syria which if they'd won, would improve our standing in the region.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab allies want Assad gone but are unwilling or unable to do it themselves. They would have been happy to see Assad go and let us deal with the ruins of Syria. While that was generous of them, it was an untenable position for us.

We need to have a more realistic vision of American power. Yes, we can knock any regime off we want anywhere in the world. What we're not very good at, because it's impossible to be good at, is building civil societies in the Mideast and Muslim nations like Afghanistan.

It's a conundrum that's going to take creative strategic thinking to find a path between "do nothing" and "bomb/invade all the places". I'm not sure that path exists but unless we start looking for it, we're never going to find it.

Until then we can enjoy the spectacle of Russia and Iran getting bogged down in the mess that Syria is and will be for a good long while. Remember the Soviet experience in Afghanistan in the 80s? That didn't turn out well for the regime. And with mounting casualties from their Ukraine operations, Vladimir Putin may be overplaying his hand. We should do what we can to make the price he pays for his adventures, like providing lethal aid to the Ukrainians, as high as possible.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:01 AM | Comments (332)
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Bombing anti-Assad forces. American leadership.... crickets

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at September 30, 2015 05:02 AM (fWAjv)

2 At least somebody is bombing ISIS now.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 05:03 AM (88fBD)

3 The bombing begins in five minutes.

Posted by: Ronnie Putin at September 30, 2015 05:06 AM (W5DcG)

4 With the Russian buildup in Syria, this would be a good time to send materiel and "advisors" to Ukraine. If only we had a world power willing to do so.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 05:06 AM (4nmNX)

5 Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at September 30, 2015 10:02 AM (fWAjv) Anti-Assad forces = ISIS and al Nusra forces. So I'm not really sure why we're complaining. If anything, Putin is once again saving Obamas ass in Syria.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:07 AM (AkOaV)

6 Obama's air strikes weren't doing all that much anyway, or so I've read. The only thing that would make this story better would be news that Obama is allowing even more Syrian refugees sanctuary in the US.

Posted by: Hayfield Volkovski at September 30, 2015 05:07 AM (kOvs6)

7 2: "At least somebody is bombing ISIS now." Care to place a wager on whether the bombing stops at ISIS?

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 05:07 AM (4nmNX)

8 Assad is a sonuvabitch, and he's not our sonuvabitch.

Posted by: Grump928(c) at September 30, 2015 05:08 AM (evdj2)

9 2 At least somebody is bombing ISIS now. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 10:03 AM (88fBD) They're not bombing ISIS.

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at September 30, 2015 05:08 AM (fWAjv)

10 Care to place a wager on whether the bombing stops at ISIS? Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 10:07 AM (4nmNX) There are 3 fighting forces in Syria right now: ISIS, al Nusra (al qaeda) and Assad. Why do we give a shit who Russia bombs?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:08 AM (AkOaV)

11 They're not bombing ISIS. Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at September 30, 2015 10:08 AM (fWAjv) Then who are they bombing?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:09 AM (AkOaV)

12 Any ISIS forces killed by the Russians would be killed by mistake. Putin is there to defend Assad. Any ISIS casualties would be collateral damage.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at September 30, 2015 05:09 AM (WiU5D)

13 There are no good guys in Syria.  We should not have been in there in any form at all.  Putin wants to maintain Syria as a client State and now he is arming up to shoot down Israeli aircraft if they have to respond to an attack.  And they will do the same to US jets if Obama ever grows a pair of balls to do something.

Posted by: Vic[/i]-we have no party at September 30, 2015 05:09 AM (t2KH5)

14 Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Fire-hooks and Rock Salt for sale at September 30, 2015 05:09 AM (kff5f)

15 Will Russia be bombing the crap out of ISIS?

Posted by: Lizzy[/i] at September 30, 2015 05:10 AM (NOIQH)

16 Within five years we will be overtly supplying ISIS to check the Iranians and the Russians. History doesn't repeat, it raps.

Posted by: Grump928(c) predicts at September 30, 2015 05:10 AM (evdj2)

17 Burn it down. Scatter the stones. Salt the earth where it stood.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Fire-hooks and Rock Salt for sale at September 30, 2015 05:10 AM (kff5f)

18 No one will ever be able to accuse Obama of a failed strategy in the Middle East. There has to be a strategy for that.

Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at September 30, 2015 05:10 AM (u5gzz)

19 I wonder if this was all part of the Iran deal. The US and Europe let Iran play with nuclear power, Russian and Iran take care of ISIS and slow the refugee flood.

Posted by: Hillary's alcoholic depression at September 30, 2015 05:10 AM (Z+7WE)

20 10: "Why do we give a shit who Russia bombs?" Because Russian bombing, either directly or through proxy will not stop at the targets we don't like. Russia isn't interested in eliminating ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, or any other splinter/front group.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 05:11 AM (4nmNX)

21 So Russia is bombing those who oppose Assad and ISIS? Great

Posted by: Lizzy[/i] at September 30, 2015 05:11 AM (NOIQH)

22 Lithuania, Estonia, and the Baltics generally called to say they fully support Russia focusing on Syria and hope Putin stays there for years.

Posted by: MTF at September 30, 2015 05:11 AM (YjQNG)

23 Work related question: Does anyone know the German (or Russian- the Russians are good at cursing) for (minor bunker warning) "fucking useless?" I need to change a cow-orker's name... I probably need the phonetic spelling if you supply the Russian.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Fire-hooks and Rock Salt for sale at September 30, 2015 05:11 AM (kff5f)

24 I seem to remember a Candidate speaking just the other day about a viewpoint similar to this. Trying to remember his name. Maybe it will come to me later.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at September 30, 2015 05:12 AM (VPLuQ)

25 16 Within five years we will be overtly supplying ISIS to check the Iranians and the Russians. History doesn't repeat, it raps. Posted by: Grump928(c) predicts at September 30, 2015 10:10 AM (evdj2) Heh, you're more than likely right.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:12 AM (AkOaV)

26 They're killing people we don't like. And the people they are killing are also killing people we don't like.

Not a lot of shits being given by me.

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 30, 2015 05:12 AM (XiVKO)

27 Our position in Syria was limited because no matter how many sides there are in the Syrian civil war, and there are many, none of them help us. Which is why Teh SCOAMT is so conflicted on Syria. On one hand, Assad opposed GWB, which normally would mean Teh SCOAMT would automatically support him. On the other, Assad is opposing Islamists, which normally would mean Teh SCOAMT would move Hell and Earth to oust him.

Posted by: steveegg at September 30, 2015 05:13 AM (cL79m)

28 Or let's put it another way. The Crips and Bloods are on the warpath and are killing each other off. It's all good. Until the fighting spills over into your neighborhood. Then all of a sudden "SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!". Russia didn't stop at Georgia. They didn't stop at Ukraine. They won't stop in Syria. Can't stop, won't stop.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 05:13 AM (4nmNX)

29 Putin is bombing the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:13 AM (PJ0bc)

30 Again people, the Russians have 2 choices of targets: ISIS or al Nusra (and their associated forces). There is no one else there for the Russians to bomb unless they go up to the NATO ally Turkey's border and start killing Kurds, which seems highly unlikely. That's why it was a fools errand for us and the Gulf states to arm and fund the "moderate opposition" against Assad -- because, oops! Turns out they're Sunni jihadists. There is not nor has ever been a "moderate opposition" of pro-western democracy loving fighters.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:14 AM (AkOaV)

31 So this is the, "I can can be more flexible after the election" part of Obama's presidency?

And who exactly is Russia bombing?  Chances are I don't like them.

Posted by: Dang at September 30, 2015 05:14 AM (2oWD2)

32 WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE:\ As I have said from the get go. WE NEVER SHOULD HAVER GOTTEN RID OF QADDAFI, MUBARAK, AND tried to get rid of Assad without knowing what might come next. And anyone with 1/2 a brain knew join these case what that senile of bastard in AZ and Fredo thought was next would be worse, MUCH WORSE. THAT is the point. We need adults back in charge. And the Russians are there not to fight ISIS.. Reports this AM are saying their first bombing runs are not against ISIS.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at September 30, 2015 05:14 AM (DUoqb)

33 If we play our cards right we can get everybody bombing everybody else and keep them all bogged down in Syria and not doing anything anywhere else. Cynical, I realize, but probably the best we can hope for.

Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at September 30, 2015 05:15 AM (RD7QR)

34 There is not nor has ever been a "moderate opposition" of pro-western democracy loving fighters. Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 10:14 AM (AkOaV) We finally agree 100% on something

Posted by: Nevergiveup at September 30, 2015 05:15 AM (DUoqb)

35 Over/under on the first American casualty of Russia's aggression?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy [/i][/s][/b][/u] at September 30, 2015 05:15 AM (LUgeY)

36 Then who are they bombing? Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 10:09 AM (AkOaV) Not sure. Areas that @AFP is told were hit by #Russia strikes in #Syria's Hama, Homs and Latakia provinces are not known to be Islamic State positions

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at September 30, 2015 05:15 AM (fWAjv)

37 Ace, the middle way is colonialism.  It would require declaring our civilizational superiority (executing child rapists), taking over their schools and converting the population to pro-westerners.  Obviously not possible given our current national character and probably not ethical.  But probably the only alternative to standing by and watching them subjugate women, rape children, then decapitate their regime when they get too free with terror sponsoring.

Posted by: pashmr at September 30, 2015 05:15 AM (3aNC4)

38 The Russians are getting bombed on brake fluid?!

I already knew that!

Posted by: Hard-of-Hearing Harold at September 30, 2015 05:16 AM (iIVyq)

39 Maybe the Russians will liberate the occupied territories around Constantinople next.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:16 AM (PJ0bc)

40 >>I know people are upset about this and think Obama should have done something. >>Here's my question...what's that something entail? Here's a thought. Maybe, just maybe, Obama shouldn't have pulled out of Iraq in the first place. Take a good look at a map of the Middle East. See that big ass country right to the east of Syria? That would be Iraq. And it's a hell of a lot bigger than the port of Tartus. I don't buy the argument that says I have to use Obama's fuckup in Iraq as a starting point for discussing would should be done in the Middle East. He allowed this situation to spin out of control and it was a purposeful plan. If we had kept troops in Iraq we would have one of those forward operating bases we were talking about yesterday and we could be hammering the hell out of ISIS in Syria, Iraq and beyond. Now this will be left to the next president to clean up and if it's a Republican he or she will be beaten down daily in the msm as a war monger or worse by attempting to clean up Obama's mess which will be conveniently forgotten. And the cycle will continue.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 05:16 AM (/tuJf)

41 So I guess "smoking crater" and "world's largest sheet of glass" aren't on the table?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Fire-hooks and Rock Salt for sale at September 30, 2015 05:16 AM (kff5f)

42 So not doing anything in Syria sends the message that we're weak, as opposed to all the other examples of us being weak?

That ship has sailed.

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 30, 2015 05:16 AM (XiVKO)

43 US official: Russia strikes not targeting ISIS areas in Syria Russian parliament grants Putin right to use military force in Syria Report: Russia demands that American planes stay out of Syrian skies Russia cautioned the United States to clear Syrian airspace ahead of the strikes, the US official said, adding, however, that the US-led coalition was "continuing to fly missions in Syria."

Posted by: Nevergiveup at September 30, 2015 05:16 AM (DUoqb)

44 You gotta believe Putain is desperate to counter Russian decline. Getting involved in Ukraine was a grievous error, because there is no gain in it if the Russians win. At least in Syria he can develop a client state and earn oil related business at the same time, gaining influence and wealth. You have to wonder how long Assad lives if he doesn't start winning the civil war.

Posted by: MTF at September 30, 2015 05:16 AM (YjQNG)

45 "I know people are upset about this and think Obama should have done something." ____________________________________________________ Not be a feckless dipshiite thus inviting Putin to fill the void? This was never an either or proposition. Leadership on the world stage is much more than whether or not we send troops into a specific region. Often times in the past we provided only outside support, yet the Soviets didn't dare go in themselves because we projected strength. I was never a supporter of putting troops in Syria, but someone more serious and competent than Obama would have kept Russia out.

Posted by: NotCoach at September 30, 2015 05:17 AM (rsudF)

46 Yeah going to be great fun, UNTIL Russian shoots down one of our jets or Israels.



Nothing good is going to come of this. NOTHING.




What can't Obama fvck up?

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 05:17 AM (jJRIy)

47 Posted by: Nevergiveup at September 30, 2015 10:14 AM (DUoqb) And that is true too. Bastards we know are much preferable to "Mubarak must go -- oops, now the muslim brotherhood is in charge"

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:17 AM (AkOaV)

48 LIVE UPDATES: Today Russia launched airstrikes against multiple targets in Syria, but while it's clear that non-ISIS rebels and possibly civilians have been killed, it's unclear whether ISIS was even a target at all.

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at September 30, 2015 05:17 AM (fWAjv)

49 Allen,

you can use "nutzlos" for just plain useless

or "unbefichlich nutzlos" That might not be correct German but whomever should get the point.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 05:18 AM (dOD0J)

50 And that is true too. Bastards we know are much preferable to "Mubarak must go -- oops, now the muslim brotherhood is in charge" Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 10:17 AM (AkOaV) Preach it brother! And now I am off to West Point before Fredo closed all the Commissaries

Posted by: Nevergiveup at September 30, 2015 05:18 AM (DUoqb)

51 Russia should bomb the racist apartheid occupation in Palestine.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:18 AM (PJ0bc)

52 DrewM,

This is not shaping up to be a quagmire for Russia. They will have total air superiority, use their proxies to fight the ground war, and deny the United States any influence in the region.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 30, 2015 05:18 AM (Zu3d9)

53 This is not shaping up to be a quagmire for Russia. They will have total air superiority, use their proxies to fight the ground war, and deny the United States any influence in the region. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 30, 2015 10:18 AM (Zu3d9) ::shrug:: ?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:19 AM (AkOaV)

54 "What can't Obama fvck up?" Planned Parenthood? They still unfortunately seem viable at this point.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at September 30, 2015 05:19 AM (VPLuQ)

55 Repost from the dead thread because relevant, IMHO: We are staring down the barrel of WWIII with an ignorant and utterly useless twit in the WH. If it breaks out, it's going to be worse than the other two combined because this time around we are not the only one with nukes, China will be one of the super powers in the war, and Islam will be another. This time around we will be handicapped by political correctness which has taught our populace that America is not only not worth fighting for, it's the cause of all evil in the world. This time around, we will be fighting on our soil--fighting combatants that either snuck in through our porous borders or who came in as refugees. Europe is being invaded as I type this.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes at September 30, 2015 05:19 AM (kXoT0)

56 Who cares? There is no civilized country within a thousand miles or so.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:20 AM (PJ0bc)

57 Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 10:16 AM (/tuJf) All of this, though I'll go a little bit further back and say part of the problem was Bush's unwillingness to impose conditions due to our victory. If you're going to say "you break it, you bought it," then you have a concomitant responsibility to control the situation - which means imposing that evil "colonialism" upon the (yes) conquered territory.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Fire-hooks and Rock Salt for sale at September 30, 2015 05:20 AM (kff5f)

58 Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at September 30, 2015 10:17 AM (fWAjv) Okay, so they were targeting al Nusra targets. Which makes sense, they're in much closer to Damascus than ISIS.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:20 AM (AkOaV)

59 Russia's economy shrunk by 4.6% just in the last quarter. That's huge. Russia (and China) in Syria are, in the words of a famous Vice President, a big forking deal. I think that the best that can be hoped for is that islamists in the region will turn their attention toward Russia and China and divert it, at least for the short term, from America. I'm pretty certain that Israel will be working to encourage that because Russia taking over Syria is a big ass threat to Israel's independence of action in the region. Just as I am fairly certain that Israel will be doing what it can to influence jihadis against Russia and probably China, I am equally certain that this country, while SCOAMT is president won't. That is also a big ass deal.

Posted by: Semper In Stercus at September 30, 2015 05:21 AM (BZAd3)

60 It doesn't make sense for the Russians to be bombing anyone but ISIS at this point. What are they going to do bomb some other minor faction while ISIS continues to gain ground... and eventually take all of Syria. If they are there to save Assad then they are bombing ISIS period

Posted by: E.T. at September 30, 2015 05:21 AM (yq4gk)

61 Now that we have a $19 trillion national debt, now that we have handed the reins of the world to Iran, Russia, and China, now that we have opened our borders to allow the rest of the world to dump its unproductive populations, and now that we have created tens of millions of Special Snowflakes (Feinting Couches Included) who have already earned the title of The Very Worst Generation, I can see why Gowdy, Boehner, and others are headed home to spend their days with family.  I wouldn't want to be in Washington DC when the shit buries the fan.

Posted by: Gone Galt at September 30, 2015 05:21 AM (nFICN)

62 Let's talk about Syria, mean while back in Afghanistan we just lost a third of the country to the Taliban.




No one in charge.  NO ONE.

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 05:21 AM (jJRIy)

63 Putin's economy can't sustain a long war--watching him spread the financial butter thin is going to be entertaining. Degenerate the faithful, Vlad, with that crazy casbah sounndddd...

Posted by: General Zod at September 30, 2015 05:22 AM (Bdeb0)

64 Do any of you believe what the US officials are telling you about what Putin's up to?  Obama has the media and we now know his administration's been demanding altered intelligence reports out of the middle east for years.  So when anyone within arms length of Obama tells me the Russians aren't bombing ISIS strongholds,  I don't fully trust that info.  At all.

Posted by: Dang at September 30, 2015 05:22 AM (2oWD2)

65 Serious question : If Russian forces in Syria shoot down US aircraft, or bomb 'US Allies' (by mistake) do you really think Obama will do anything about it. I can see him doing nothing and leaving US assets in Syria to act as bomb catchers, or pull them all out as we did in Lebanon, and Somalia.

Posted by: Hayfield Volkovski at September 30, 2015 05:23 AM (kOvs6)

66 Posted by: E.T. at September 30, 2015 10:21 AM (yq4gk) ISIS hasn't made any big claims on Damascus, and they're off doing their own thing right now. Their targets are Mecca, Medina, and Al Quds -- so Saudi Arabia and Israel. They don't want to go door to door through Shia territory for Damascus. At least not at this point. Same with Baghdad. I'd say both cities are safe for now. The more immediate threat to Assad is al Nusra and the "opposition forces" (http://tinyurl.com/puzyqh7) in close to Damascus.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:23 AM (AkOaV)

67 >> Putin's economy can't sustain a long war--watching him spread the financial butter thin is going to be entertaining. Degenerate the faithful, Vlad, with that crazy casbah sounndddd... It couldn't before he started trading weapons for Iranian oil. It can now.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 05:23 AM (/tuJf)

68 Su-24's, Su-27's and their variants have a problem with dropping out of the air.

Strategy page has a whole slew of articles about them.

S-300 Air Defense System. Has it been tested in Combat?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 05:24 AM (dOD0J)

69 Russia probably has as much reason to fear ISIS as we do. I suspect that Russia is going to pacify Syria, install a pro-Russian dictator, then work with Iran to squeeze the Iraqi portion of ISIS. I'd rather the west had some say in Iraq and Syria, but we are not necessarily the force for good we used to be.

Posted by: Hillary's alcoholic depression at September 30, 2015 05:24 AM (Z+7WE)

70 Except in Syria there is no Northern Alliance like there was in Afghanistan.

And this is what happens when the Progressives idea of a 'multi-polar' world order comes into play.  The battle of the empires for hegemony that characterized the 19th Century and lead to WWI.

Posted by: Anna Puma at September 30, 2015 05:24 AM (C/DS0)

71 IMHO, Putin is trying to beat China into "solving" the Syria/ISIS mess. China's one child policy has created a generation of men with no women to marry, so China would love to see a few tens of millions of their surplus males die in battle.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes at September 30, 2015 05:24 AM (kXoT0)

72 I'm sure the Russians are and will be bombing both al Nusra and ISIS, because theres really no one else for them to bomb. And Obama is asshurt about it so his media is making up some sort of mythical "moderate opposition" that they're saying is being hurt by mean Putin.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:24 AM (AkOaV)

73 " Who cares? There is no civilized country within a thousand miles or so." Distance from middle of Syria to middle of Israel? 354 miles Border to Border is much closer

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at September 30, 2015 05:25 AM (VPLuQ)

74 "Lethal aid to the Ukranians".. Haha, your very funny man.

Posted by: Ditherer in Chief at September 30, 2015 05:25 AM (GjeLd)

75 If you're going to say "you break it, you bought it," then you have a concomitant responsibility to control the situation - which means imposing that evil "colonialism" upon the (yes) conquered territory. Yep. Stopping all the forced clitorectomies, head/hand/foot chopping, child-rape, illiteracy, denial of basic human rights and general hatred of civilization is just evil, don'tchaknow. #WASTF

Posted by: BackwardsBoy [/i][/s][/b][/u] at September 30, 2015 05:25 AM (LUgeY)

76 73 I said civilized country.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:25 AM (PJ0bc)

77 Posted by: Hillary's alcoholic depression at September 30, 2015 10:24 AM (Z+7WE) There are a fuckton of Chechnyans in Syria / Iraq fighting for ISIS right now. Apparently they're the fiercest and most battle hardened and savvy fighters if the Vice documentaries and other "behind the lines" reporting are to be believed. That makes the Russians nervous.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:26 AM (AkOaV)

78 I'm sure Putin's forgotten all about that Beslan school massacre.

Posted by: Dang at September 30, 2015 05:26 AM (2oWD2)

79 S-300 Air Defense System. Has it been tested in Combat?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 10:24 AM (dOD0J)


It has obviously been tested, not in combat, but tested, it scares the shit out of Israel and the US.



Too fast to stop. 



Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 05:26 AM (jJRIy)

80
It's a conundrum that's going to take creative strategic thinking to find a path between "do nothing" and "bomb/invade all the places". I'm not sure that path exists but unless we start looking for it, we're never going to find it.



How about we try Minding our own fucking business?

Posted by: Your Creepy Uncle at September 30, 2015 05:27 AM (RzFAk)

81 to take creative strategic thinking

a. Double or Triple what we did in Iraq.
b. Don't elect Democrats.

For the next Moron trick see how b. applies to All of The Problems.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 05:27 AM (DL2i+)

82 How about we try Minding our own fucking business? Posted by: Your Creepy Uncle at September 30, 2015 10:27 AM (RzFAk) Too controversial. Better to just fly a bunch of sorties and pretend to be "doing something"

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:27 AM (AkOaV)

83 What we're not very good at, because it's impossible to be good at, is building civil societies in the Mideast and Muslim nations like Afghanistan. That's what puppet dictators are for. And they serve a very useful and constructive purpose. And they are hardly ever nearly as violent or vicious as those societies are, all on their own.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 30, 2015 05:28 AM (zc3Db)

84 We will do nothing in the skies and on the beaches.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:28 AM (PJ0bc)

85 It doesn't make sense for the Russians to be bombing anyone but ISIS at this point. What are they going to do bomb some other minor faction while ISIS continues to gain ground... and eventually take all of Syria. If they are there to save Assad then they are bombing ISIS period Posted by: E.T. at September 30, 2015 10:21 AM (yq4gk) If memory serves, the other groups are between Assad and ISIS.

Posted by: steveegg at September 30, 2015 05:28 AM (cL79m)

86 80: "How about we try Minding our own fucking business?" Someone seems to have forgotten an event that occurred in 2001. The problem with such thinking in the modern world is that if you don't deal with the problem early enough, it will come looking for you.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 05:29 AM (4nmNX)

87 83 What we're not very good at, because it's impossible to be good at, is building civil societies in the Mideast and Muslim nations like Afghanistan. That's what puppet dictators are for. And they serve a very useful and constructive purpose. And they are hardly ever nearly as violent or vicious as those societies are, all on their own. Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 30, 2015 10:28 AM (zc3Db) Yes. An iron-fisted tyrant we can control and moderate is infinitely to be preferred to anarchy.

Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at September 30, 2015 05:29 AM (RD7QR)

88 We have roughly one year to go until the 2016 election and a about a year and a quarter until Obama leaves office- so we're now at his endgame stage to cripple American power worldwide and damage the economy and middle class at home. Obama's all but told Russia, China, and Iran in word and action to "go for it because I'll do nothing to protect our interests or allies". So, the clock is ticking and if Russia, China or Iran are bold enough, they can literally achieve most of their short term and even some of their longterm goals. The US economy will be so weak (with Boehner's upcoming FU-out-the-door assistance- the military weak and in need of rebuilding and getting the Obamabots out of leadership- that it will be a while until we can do anything even after the election. So, yep. Fundamental change, bitchez. Thanks, 52%!

Posted by: naturalfake at September 30, 2015 05:30 AM (KUa85)

89 SA-10/SA-20 have been in service since 1982.

Posted by: Anna Puma at September 30, 2015 05:30 AM (C/DS0)

90 There are no ISIS in Homs.  Russia is cleaning out the resistance.  They haven't bombed any ISIS position.



That is an excuse to be there, not the reason.

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 05:30 AM (jJRIy)

91 Russian's, as an ethnicity (they are referred to as one) have to be some of the stupidest people on the planet. Putin is among the wealthiest people on the planet and all he has ever been is a bureaucrat, or however you categorize what he did in the KGB. For Russians to see this guy, who has made a career out of fleecing Russia and Russians, and for them to see him as a reincarnation of the "great" Russian czars, is not a ringing endorsement of Russian intelligence. Of course we have Obama as our president, so...

Posted by: Semper In Stercus at September 30, 2015 05:30 AM (BZAd3)

92 Obama is going to start whining about Russian ROE pretty soon. Apparently "shoot to kill" is too brief for administration ears.

Posted by: MTF at September 30, 2015 05:31 AM (YjQNG)

93 Lemme get this straight - a bunch of assholes are bombing another bunch of assholes who may or may not be assholes temporarily aligned with assholes opposed to our assholes. That about cover it?

Posted by: Citizen Cake at September 30, 2015 05:31 AM (ppaKI)

94 "It has obviously been tested, not in combat, but tested, it scares the shit out of Israel and the US."

Or so said in public.

First off test by anything that comes out of Russia and the Mideast need to be taken with a grain of salt. Theses tests can and often do consists of nothing more than propaganda footage released to the public.

When it has went through the fire of war can it really said to have been tested.

Now if I had a conspiratorial bone in my body I would tell my neighbor I was in fear because his horse harnesses are so cheap, this contraption that doesn't need horses to move, might never catch on.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 05:32 AM (dOD0J)

95 Lemme get this straight - a bunch of assholes are bombing another bunch of assholes who may or may not be assholes temporarily aligned with assholes opposed to our assholes. That about cover it? Posted by: Citizen Cake at September 30, 2015 10:31 AM (ppaKI) Nailed it.

Posted by: steveegg at September 30, 2015 05:32 AM (cL79m)

96 Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 10:30 AM (jJRIy) Homs north through Aleppo is Al Nusra territory, not ISIS, correct.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:33 AM (AkOaV)

97 91: "Russian's, as an ethnicity (they are referred to as one) have to be some of the stupidest people on the planet." They have among the highest, in not the actual highest, rate of alchoholism in the world. Bathtub wodka is a hell of a drug.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 05:33 AM (4nmNX)

98 Boss and I were discussing it this morning.  My fear is that the Russians will shoot down a USAF drone or manned plane just to demonstrate that they can, because they know that the WH will do nothing.  Once nations know that they can hit the US with impunity, expect things to turn really ugly.  If it happens, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese follow suit by trying to sink a US destroyer in the pacific.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at September 30, 2015 05:33 AM (OiH3z)

99 They need to send those Syrian Refugees back home so they can get some.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:33 AM (PJ0bc)

100 91 Russian's, as an ethnicity (they are referred to as one) have to be some of the stupidest people on the planet. Putin is among the wealthiest people on the planet and all he has ever been is a bureaucrat, or however you categorize what he did in the KGB. For Russians to see this guy, who has made a career out of fleecing Russia and Russians, and for them to see him as a reincarnation of the "great" Russian czars, is not a ringing endorsement of Russian intelligence. Of course we have Obama as our president, so... Posted by: Semper In Stercus at September 30, 2015 10:30 AM (BZAd3) They're plenty smart; they're also slaves to their history. To them, an autocrat who enriches himself but keeps order and keeps out the barbarians is a wonderful tradeoff.

Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at September 30, 2015 05:33 AM (RD7QR)

101 "73 I said civilized country." Just in case I am honestly misunderstand you, could you expand on that comment just a little bit?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at September 30, 2015 05:33 AM (VPLuQ)

102 @96

It's not ISIS. not sure who it is

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 05:34 AM (jJRIy)

103 This is not shaping up to be a quagmire for Russia. They will have total air superiority, use their proxies to fight the ground war, and deny the United States any influence in the region. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 30, 2015 10:18 AM (Zu3d9) ::shrug:: ? Seconded. Also, unrelated but "where the white European women at?"

Posted by: "Syrian" "Refugee" at September 30, 2015 05:35 AM (r9mDd)

104 Now this will be left to the next president to clean up and if it's a Republican he or she will be beaten down daily in the msm as a war monger or worse by attempting to clean up Obama's mess which will be conveniently forgotten. And the cycle will continue. Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 10:16 AM (/tuJf) No one, except the neo-cons, wanted to do nation building in Iraq. Had Bush gone in, deposed Saddam and put some colonel from the military in charge and admonished him that we could do to him what we just did to Saddam, life would have been better. Sure the lefties would have screamed. But it would have been cheaper and we would be feared. The belief that we are going to garrison a hostile country for decades is fantasy. We aren't an empire and most Americans don't want one. All these nation building exercises do is make it less likely for Americans to want act in the world in legitimate circumstances.

Posted by: WOPR at September 30, 2015 05:35 AM (gQmg/)

105 93- "a bunch of assholes are bombing another bunch of assholes who may or may not be assholes temporarily aligned with assholes opposed to our assholes." More like- a bunch of assholes are bombing another bunch of assholes who may or may not be assholes temporarily aligned with assholes opposed to other assholes, and all of the above hate us.

Posted by: nnptcgrad at September 30, 2015 05:35 AM (XtAzU)

106 I really don't get why we care who the Russians bomb in Syria. Every one in Syria is an asshole, none of them are on our side. If the Russians want to keep their dictator in power -- it makes Obama and his red lines look even more stupid, but honestly it's preferable to the alternative which is a 3 or 4 way split of Syria in to small Kurd area, big ISIS area, big al Nusra area, small Alawite / shia area with the whole place being one big failed stated like it's neighbor Iraq.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:36 AM (AkOaV)

107 The Russians have 'asked' us to vacate the skies over Syria. And just as what happened in the south China Sea, we will huff and puff and then meekly comply. Watch and see.

Posted by: Citizen Cake at September 30, 2015 05:36 AM (ppaKI)

108 Breedlove said "...very sophisticated air-to-air aircraft..."! Well we clearly have Top.People. working on that.

Posted by: Roscoe at September 30, 2015 05:36 AM (lHpdV)

109 Popcorn. With any luck it will spread to our fake allies who are constantly stabbing us in the back.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:37 AM (PJ0bc)

110 I wonder if this was all part of the Iran deal. The US and Europe let Iran play with nuclear power, Russian and Iran take care of ISIS and slow the refugee flood. Posted by: Hillary's alcoholic depression at September 30, 2015 10:10 AM (Z+7WE) Few of the refugees are from Syria. They aren't "refugees," they are people realizing that European welfare is theirs for the taking.

Posted by: WOPR at September 30, 2015 05:37 AM (gQmg/)

111 They're plenty smart; they're also slaves to their history. To them, an autocrat who enriches himself but keeps order and keeps out the barbarians is a wonderful tradeoff. Posted by: joncelli, Boned like You at September 30, 2015 10:33 AM (RD7QR) They do love their czars, no question about that. I've said this before that Russians don't seem to mind being subjugated as long as their leaders subjugate others more.

Posted by: Semper In Stercus at September 30, 2015 05:37 AM (BZAd3)

112 The problem with such thinking in the modern world is that if you don't deal with the problem early enough, it will come looking for you. There's another aspect of today's world that's been in effect for pretty much all of recorded history: if we don't impose our will upon them, they'll impose their will upon us. Some people will dismiss this idea as being stupidly binary, but they'll need to do a lot of convincing. For proof, see virtually any pictures Iran and Iraq in the '60's and '70' vs. today.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy [/i][/s][/b][/u] at September 30, 2015 05:38 AM (LUgeY)

113 Our only position in the region should be to protect Israel from the Islamic expansion. And Obama won't do that. He can do that, he could do that, but he won't do that.

Posted by: starboardhelm at September 30, 2015 05:38 AM (hOtJL)

114 Yes. An iron-fisted tyrant we can control and moderate

Because what didn't work for Saddam is bound to work next time 11ty!!

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 05:38 AM (DL2i+)

115 Later variants of the S-300/SA-10/SA-20 have ABM capability.  Of course there is that other variant called the S-300V or SA-12A Gladiator/SA-12B Giant.  One is ABM and the other is SAM.

Posted by: Anna Puma at September 30, 2015 05:39 AM (C/DS0)

116 Well ... Now that we're an actual energy exporter, how about instead of jumping in the middle of Russia's Next Foreign Fuck Up we instead fortify the one damn ally in the region that we can count on - Israel. Ooh ... and here's a thought ... let's go ahead and back two others ... the Jordanians and Saudis. With a twist - this time, crack all the heads you want domestically. Because we're not slavs to your oil, and another 9/11 by your citizens will result in immediate regime change. We're good at that - and there are plenty of blood thirsty bastards just waiting to replace you. Final thought ... Divide Iraq in three. Fuck the Turks if they don't like independent Kurds.

Posted by: Irony at September 30, 2015 05:39 AM (9miVc)

117 102 @96 It's not ISIS. not sure who it is Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 10:34 AM (jJRIy) Sunni Jihadists. Either flying the flag of al Nusra, or flying the flag of associated forces. Once you get to the Aleppo area, it gets confusing -- ISIS, al Nusra, the Kurds, and Assads forces are all around that area, so it's anyones guess who you are bombing. I expect the Russians to bomb the closest threats first, then move farther out. Again, I don't see the problem here. In fact, I'm not really rooting for anyone to win -- I'm rooting for injuries.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:39 AM (AkOaV)

118 No one, except the neo-cons, wanted to do nation building in Iraq. Had Bush gone in, deposed Saddam and put some colonel from the military in charge and admonished him that we could do to him what we just did to Saddam, life would have been better. Sure the lefties would have screamed. But it would have been cheaper and we would be feared. Posted by: WOPR at September 30, 2015 10:35 AM (gQmg/) What should have happened in Iraq is that we should ahve taken back the oil fields and left the rest of the country to wallow in shit, as arabs love. If they wanted help then your idea would have been a good one to implement, but without control of the oil fields Iraq is no threat to anyone or any thing. In the end, all threats emanating from the arab/persian/muslim world start and stop with control of the gulf oil fields. That is the source of their power. To win the War on Terror those fields must be wrested from their control - and those fields aren't theirs, anyway, as they were just stolen in the forced nationalization waves of the mid 20th century (which we never should have allowed to happen). Shit, the arabs still can't run and maintain those fields on their own, which is friggin pathetic.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 30, 2015 05:39 AM (zc3Db)

119 So Syria is 'Game of Thrones' in the real world with real armies? Or is it the tabletop game 'Risk'? Or are we going back to the 'Thirty year war' only in the middle east instead of Europe? Some war gamers should write a computer model of the middle east and crowd source the strategy development. Could be money there. Update Sid Meier's game 'Civilization' to version six, 'Pacify the Middle East'.

Posted by: Hayfield Volkovski at September 30, 2015 05:39 AM (kOvs6)

120 What is amazingly stupid about all this is the destruction of the entire country.


What the fvck is it going to be worth in a year or so?   Except for the oil and gas rights off the coast, nothing.


Nothing.  

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 05:39 AM (jJRIy)

121 Did they hit the aspirin factories yet?

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:40 AM (PJ0bc)

122 Supplies of natural gas and oil are recovered in the usa via fracking. OPEC responds to threat by reducing price of oil. Russian oil and natural gas takes a hit, too. Now creating chaos in the middle east would benefit them. I don't see how restoring order, killing a bunch of people who need killing, slowing the refugee flow into Europe is a pants-wetting moment. I remember the knashing of teeth and hand wringing when they got tired of the Taliban selling heroin to their people and moved into Afghanistan for almost a decade. The USA helped the resistance and helped kill Russians. So I'm keeping my pants clean and dry and hoping they clean up the mess obama made.

Posted by: se pa moron at September 30, 2015 05:41 AM (sI4OA)

123 So, any chance of a single Republican candidate successfully laying this steaming bag of shit at Biden's feet if he decides to run?

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 30, 2015 05:42 AM (XiVKO)

124 You can say that there is no pro-American side in Syria, but it's just not true.

But I wonder about the media's seeming intent to describe it as a "Civil War". Isn't it more of an insurrection?

Posted by: JohnJ at September 30, 2015 05:42 AM (TH0iO)

125 >>The belief that we are going to garrison a hostile country for decades is fantasy. We aren't an empire and most Americans don't want one. All these nation building exercises do is make it less likely for Americans to want act in the world in legitimate circumstances. They were not a hostile country when Obama pulled us out. We had control of virtually the entire country and the Iraqi government was slowly getting it's legs under it and building its own civil society. It is false to pretend that wasn't the case. It was only after Obama pulled out that the place imploded because it was not ready to stand on it's own. I frankly don't give a shit about stupid ass terms like neocon nor do I care what the population who spends more time worrying about the size of the various Khardasians asses thinks. The US population was not interested in WWII either before we went. That's where presidential leadership comes in. It's not their job to follow pubic opinion polls, it's their job to lead, particularly when it is tough. But now we will get to see the wisdom of the sit back and think of England crowd as the Middle East rushes toward all out war with Russia's help. Let's see how much the public likes it.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 05:42 AM (/tuJf)

126 117: "Again, I don't see the problem here." The problem is illustrated in your own words. "...then move farther out." Can't stop, won't stop.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 05:42 AM (4nmNX)

127 Banana republics like Nicaragua are so passe now.

Libya had the perfect banana republic leader so what happens, Gaylord deposes him in a very brutal way.

Posted by: Anna Puma at September 30, 2015 05:42 AM (C/DS0)

128 Our only position in the region should be to protect Israel from the Islamic expansion. Posted by: starboardhelm at September 30, 2015 10:38 AM (hOtJL) Israel doesn't need anyone to protect them. Israel can protect itself, as it always has. What is needed is that we don't stop Israel from being able to protect itself or that we don't join with Israel's enemies against Israel, which has been Barky's strategy.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 30, 2015 05:43 AM (zc3Db)

129 For proof, see virtually any pictures Iran and Iraq in the '60's and '70' vs. today. Posted by: BackwardsBoy at September 30, 2015 10:38 AM (LUgeY) pan-Arab socialism spread throughout the Arab world like crazy post-WWII. Persia had a similar "cultural revolution" under the last Shah and his dad. What we're saying today is the "popular backlash" to those ideas. THIS is the default state of the Muslim world. Not Americanized women in college like in the '60s. The Islamic revolution in Iran was a direct result of the Shahs ideas about "modernization". And the Ba'athists and other "pan-arab socialists" like the Egyptian Military are hated by the jihadists for the same reason. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not like *we* were behind Iran becoming "westernized". They did that on their own. The people (at least enough of them) were not happy with that, and here we are.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:43 AM (AkOaV)

130 What should have happened in Iraq is that we should ahve taken back the oil fields and left the rest of the country to wallow in shit, as arabs love. We should've split Iraq in 3. The Kurds we can definitely do business with, and fuck Erdogen if he doesn't like it. The rest can pretty much wallow, like you said.

Posted by: Ian S. at September 30, 2015 05:43 AM (S+N7W)

131 What I hate is feeling all Euroweenie about this. "Yay, someone came in and took care of this for us!" Yeah, Russia will do what's in Russia's interests - which is what we used to do, too.

Posted by: Bigby's Atomic Elbow at September 30, 2015 05:44 AM (3ZtZW)

132 Lemme get this straight - a bunch of assholes are bombing another bunch of assholes who may or may not be assholes temporarily aligned with assholes opposed to our assholes. That about cover it? Posted by: Citizen Cake Surrounded by them! https://youtu.be/sen8Tn8CBA4

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at September 30, 2015 05:44 AM (W5DcG)

133 No one, except the neo-cons, wanted to do nation building in Iraq. Had Bush gone in, deposed Saddam and put some colonel from the military in charge and admonished him that we could do to him what we just did to Saddam, life would have been better. Sure the lefties would have screamed. But it would have been cheaper and we would be feared. Hindsight is 20/20. We tried to bring in democracy and it failed, largely because Americans don't have the will for long wars. Yes, this is all because Obama fucked up a basic thing - keeping troops in Iraq as occupiers. But let's be honest, he got power because people got mad Iraq wasn't won in an afternoon. When we have to do this again, we'll have to go the strongman route in the Middle East.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 05:44 AM (88fBD)

134 Can't stop, won't stop. Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 10:42 AM (4nmNX) So... what? the Russians are going to invade Baghdad, Ankara and Tel Aviv?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:44 AM (AkOaV)

135 This will be Russia's Vietnam!!!

Posted by: Guy who always says... at September 30, 2015 05:44 AM (3myMJ)

136 Can somebody explain why Assad is a bad guy? If he loses, the Allawites get wiped out. That seems like a good justification for using any means necessary to protect his people. So Assad doesn't seem like such a bad guy (not that I know what I'm talking about) unless you're OK with the Allawites getting wiped off the face of the earth.

Posted by: bjk at September 30, 2015 05:45 AM (x2rNW)

137 Look Drew acknowledging Preznit Special Needs got rolled again ain't saying "do something Barry!"

Quite the contrary, memo to the DC "smart set":

You stupid cock-sucking bastards wanted to arm ISIS overtly to "get Assad."

This worked wonderfully in Libya and Egypt where tacitly we've morphed into being the Muslim Brotherhood's air wing....

America and by extension the world would be better off if the McCain gang and Democrats would take a nice stroll across Alaska on foot for awhile.

They've done enough.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 05:45 AM (g8Hfr)

138 No, nation building in Iraq failed because it was doomed, not because we didn't have the heart for it. Doooooooooooooomed.

Posted by: bjk at September 30, 2015 05:46 AM (x2rNW)

139 bjk, in Syria there are no good guys.

Baby Assad's father exterminated a whole village.  And also manipulated Lebanon into becoming a failed nation.

Posted by: Anna Puma at September 30, 2015 05:46 AM (C/DS0)

140 Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 10:42 AM (/tuJf) Yes, Iraq was a victory. The defeat was here at home. The Commiecrats and their gope pals were and still are the real enemies. W let them win here. Why? He's a gope.

Posted by: eman at September 30, 2015 05:46 AM (MQEz6)

141

Simple solution - stop giving a shit about civilian casualties.

The current conflict is not getting resolved, because of our restraint.  Our restraint is getting a LOT of people killed.

 

Why is it there is a single car or truck still driving around in ISIS controlled areas?  that there is any electricity, or water?  destroy ever vehicle or useful structure in ISIS territory.  Let me predict - there will be news of a bunch of wedding parties shot up  and starving people. So?  First of all, it is probably a lie, and second, tough luck, third of all, if there are innocents they are going to keep suffering indefinitely until this is done.  The Dolittle raid had no strategic value, but had enormous psychological value.  That is WHY we did it.

 

War happens when someone decides to get their way by force, and it stops when one side realizes there is no hope of ever getting what they want.  Hope just brings more war.  We need to extinguish all hope in ISIS.  they need to look around and see nothing but ruins and chaos, no possible path to victory.  That is when there will be peace.

Posted by: George Orwell's Ghost at September 30, 2015 05:46 AM (FzvkV)

142 Should probably send Rand Paul over to talk to him, optometrist to optometrist.

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 30, 2015 05:46 AM (XiVKO)

143 Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 10:42 AM (/tuJf) No, we were propping up a very unpopular Shia tribesman who was exacting revenge against the Sunni tribesmen who had benefited when fellow Sunni tribesman Saddam Hussein was in charge. There is no way for that government to have ever stood without our constant intervention.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:46 AM (AkOaV)

144 2 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 10:03 AM (88fBD)

Indeed...

now that Putin's on the case ISIS is in trouble probably.

of course given Genius INC's brilliance we'll probably start training ISIS in SOCOM methods or something.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 05:46 AM (g8Hfr)

145 "They were not a hostile country when Obama pulled us out. We had control of virtually the entire country and the Iraqi government was slowly getting it's legs under it and building its own civil society.

The Sunni's in Iraq would like to dispute this statement. They can't. Their either dead, ran off and hiding from isis, or joining isis.


Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 05:46 AM (dOD0J)

146 Just like the "central government" in Afghanistan will fall about 2 seconds after our last troop pulls out.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:47 AM (AkOaV)

147 think Obama should have done something ------ Or we think he should not set redlines that he (and the country) are not willing to back up as it makes our country look weak.

Posted by: SH at September 30, 2015 05:47 AM (bZWvh)

148 I thought Putin promised not to do that thing in Obama's mouth.

Posted by: Roy at September 30, 2015 05:47 AM (VndSC)

149 The Russians are probably never going to be friends/allies. But they don't have to be our enemies. During the 90's and early aughts, we should have been cultivating a reasonable working relationship with the Russkies and not walking around like we owned the place. Sure there are areas where we're going to bump heads. But, it didn't have to be the dichotomy of Fredo's impotence and Mitt's return to the Cold War.

Posted by: WOPR at September 30, 2015 05:47 AM (gQmg/)

150 I'm beginning to think that I really don't care unless he is bombing some quiet enclave of pacifists somewhere. From what I can tell, he is probably bombing Muslims with guns, who cares which side those Muslims with guns are on. Also, it's not like the U.S. needs to save face, the whole world already knows how weak and feeble Obama is, no need to puff up our chest, I just hope they don't just go and whine like sissy boys to the U.N. and make us look worse. As for Russia, never hurts for them to expend some of their military dollars, we know how that turns out for them.

Posted by: doug at September 30, 2015 05:47 AM (DDOrL)

151 139 Posted by: Anna Puma at September 30, 2015 10:46 AM (C/DS0)

Anna I am convinced over time there are no "good guys" in governmental positions anywhere on Earth....

maybe Mars.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 05:48 AM (g8Hfr)

152 Sven, Sturgeon's Law applies to humans.

Posted by: Anna Puma at September 30, 2015 05:48 AM (C/DS0)

153 You stupid cock-sucking bastards wanted to arm ISIS overtly to "get Assad." This is why I didn't want to bomb targets to help the rebels. There are no good guys. The rebels are Christian killing scumbags. Our efforts to arm the 50 good guys in Syria have been a total disaster. We should be bombing ISIS. We should be fighting ISIS.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 05:48 AM (88fBD)

154 Remain Neutral like Switzerland.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:48 AM (PJ0bc)

155 125. I don't think Americans give any shit about what goes on in the Middle-East between Russians and Arabs. I also don't think many limited government conservatives or libertarians do either; it's more of an Establishment "military contracts are up for grabs if Republicans take back the White House" kind of caring.

Posted by: "Syrian" "Refugee" at September 30, 2015 05:48 AM (r9mDd)

156 No one, except the neo-cons, wanted to do nation building in Iraq. In fairness to Bush, our previous model for such a thing was post-WW2 Japan and Germany, where nation building worked out pretty well. This is much like how on 9/11 the previous mental model of hijacking was some kooks wanting a free ride to some Communist country and/or to kill a few Jews and let everyone else go. The people on Flight 93 understood the new world order in time to do something about it; those on the other 3 planes didn't.

Posted by: Ian S. at September 30, 2015 05:49 AM (S+N7W)

157 this is like watching the Braves vs Phillies you want both to lose

Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 05:49 AM (zOTsN)

158 They should try nation building in Detroit first.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:49 AM (PJ0bc)

159 The Russians are probably never going to be friends/allies. But they don't have to be our enemies. ------ 500 years of history says otherwise.

Posted by: SH at September 30, 2015 05:49 AM (bZWvh)

160 Should probably send Rand Paul over to talk to him, optometrist to optometrist. Posted by: Chupacabras Doctor my eyes.

Posted by: Marty Feldman at September 30, 2015 05:49 AM (W5DcG)

161 >>>When we have to do this again, we'll have to go the strongman route in the Middle East. That was our strategy in the Caribbean for most of the 20th century, and aside from Cuba, it worked.

Posted by: Citizen Cake at September 30, 2015 05:50 AM (ppaKI)

162 Let Putin fight ISIS. I am just being honest but I no longer give a shit about anyone over there other that the trapped minority Christian populations they rest of them can die in a fire

Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 05:50 AM (zOTsN)

163 W should arm the Red Sox.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:51 AM (PJ0bc)

164 You know what kind of war is not long, drawn out and protracted? Nuclear war. Recovery may take a while. But the actual fighting is over with pretty quick.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at September 30, 2015 05:51 AM (VPLuQ)

165 Posted by: Ian S. at September 30, 2015 10:49 AM (S+N7W) big god damn difference from taking a modern western society and helping it re-build post war, or a modern asian society and helping IT re-build post war (a war in which we beat the shit out of everything living and breathing with no apologies and thoroughly demoralized every civilian, soldiers, etc to the point where they were not going to resist) and "nation building" a backwards-ass muslim country stuck in the 6th century after we depose an unpopular ruler.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:51 AM (AkOaV)

166 >>No, we were propping up a very unpopular Shia tribesman who was exacting revenge against the Sunni tribesmen who had benefited when fellow Sunni tribesman Saddam Hussein was in charge. >>There is no way for that government to have ever stood without our constant intervention And this is better? You think we aren't going back at some point only this time to a much more hostile reception? Think again. Yes, it could have been done better. Iran was constantly meddling and that needed to be addressed. But Bush was out of capital, particularly after the financial crisis, and Obama was signaling for the 2 years he was running that the first thing he was going to do was pull all our troops out. Not unlike his brilliant strategy in Afghanistan of telling the Taliban and various other terror groups exactly when we would be leaving. The whole point of leaving our troops there in strength was to project strength to prevent these flareups and to deal with them when they were small. Now we have a much bigger problem on our hands. Just as in Vietnam, we won the war and lost the peace because fucking politicians. And we will pay a significant price for their gutlessness.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 05:52 AM (/tuJf)

167 America, both her government and her people, needs to warm up to, you know, ation-nay uilding-bay. And not every president these newly formed societies is going to be like George Washington, and not every dictator that takes power will be the next Cincinnatus. Sometimes the U.S. will have to do what it can, see a guy like Pinochet run things, hope for the best and wait it out.

Posted by: FireHorse at September 30, 2015 05:52 AM (/LXLs)

168 I'd really like to know when the last time a long term, less than full scale declared war conflict worked out for us ? Anyone ? Anyone at all ? For all the complaints that Progressives never learn from the string of Socialist failures, sure seems like our WarCocks suffer a similar blind spot.

Posted by: Irony at September 30, 2015 05:52 AM (9miVc)

169 Send in a few Bear Bombers and it could be over in a few minutes.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 05:52 AM (PJ0bc)

170 In fairness to Bush, our previous model for such a thing was post-WW2 Japan and Germany, where nation building worked out pretty well. Posted by: Ian S. at September 30, 2015 10:49 AM (S+N7W) The difference was that we threatened them with total extermination and actually started carrying it out, forced an unconditional surrender, and then took total control of those nations, forcibly reacculturating the japanese, with macArthur treating the place as his own little fiefdom. It ended up turning Japan, one of our most vicious and intransigent enemies in the war into one of our closest and most trustworthy allies for well over half a century ... so everything we did to carry that out was banned and declared "illegal".

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 30, 2015 05:52 AM (zc3Db)

171 You know what kind of war is not long, drawn out and protracted? Nuclear war. I hear ya.

Posted by: Revelation 16:18 at September 30, 2015 05:52 AM (S+N7W)

172 according to the Jerusalem Post Russia gave Israel advance notice of the strikes let that sink in Russia gave Israel advance notice but not us

Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 05:52 AM (zOTsN)

173 This is OT, but I want to post my reponse to trumpetdaddy: 309 Abortion is less popular than at any time in 40 years. People broadly favor restrictions on abortion more than ever. States with unified Republican control are restricting abortion to the extent possible given Federal court rulings. ******* If we don't piss it all away by being too strident now. Posted by: trumpetdaddy at September 30, 2015 10:41 AM (ljZD2) _____________________ Does not compute, does not compute. Your saying the abortion issue is now to our advantage, but we shouldn't take advantage of it. We've heard this refrain before: trumpetdaddy 2015 - we can't do anything about abortion right now because we have an election coming up in 2016 and can't risk it. trumpetdaddy Jan 2017 - we can't do anything about abortion right now because we have an election coming up in 2018 and can't risk it. Same refrain over and over and over and over.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at September 30, 2015 05:53 AM (LXJ1e)

174 Muslims are like fire ants. Either nuke from orbit or stay out of their way.

Posted by: Meremortal at September 30, 2015 05:53 AM (3myMJ)

175 134: "So... what? the Russians are going to invade Baghdad, Ankara and Tel Aviv?" Don't be short sighted. Neither Ankara nor Tel Aviv control adequate resources. But get used to seeing Gazprom pipelines, shipping ports, and infrastructure. Shortly thereafter, NATO member states absent the U.S. will "decide" to disband the entity. It has already been telegraphed. All Russia needs is a further stranglehold. It was once said that he who controls the spice, controls the universe. In the real world of today, he who controls the petroleum, controls the world.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 05:53 AM (4nmNX)

176 I don't know what the answer is, but it's not like *we* were behind Iran becoming "westernized". They did that on their own. The people (at least enough of them) were not happy with that, and here we are. I didn't mean to imply that we westernized the ME. My point was that modernity can be forcibly removed at any time and if we don't start defending it more vigorously than we're doing nowadays, we'll see it disappear. I sorta hate to get all Biblical and stuff, but there was a headline I saw yesterday that stopped me in my tracks. It said something to the effect of, "radical islam becomes world's most dangerous force." Armageddon is coming and it's going to be Christians and Jews against the goatfuckers. It's going to come in every form imaginable: militarily, socially and intellectually. Gird your loins appropriately.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy [/i][/s][/b][/u] at September 30, 2015 05:53 AM (LUgeY)

177 Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 10:52 AM (/tuJf) No the preferable action would have been to either a) leave saddam in place b) find a strong arm dictator, most likely a Ba'athist (or someone else who was not a jihadist and not some ridiculous Shia tribesman) to replace Saddam. And I lean toward a) personally.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:54 AM (AkOaV)

178 "according to the Jerusalem Post Russia gave Israel advance notice of the strikes let that sink in Russia gave Israel advance notice but not us" Lot of implication in those words right there. Course, Barky couldn't grasp the nuance even with a white board and pictures.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at September 30, 2015 05:54 AM (VPLuQ)

179 Pay attention Russia gave Israel advance notice they arent going into Tel Aviv they are working together

Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 05:55 AM (zOTsN)

180 172 Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 10:52 AM (zOTsN)

Historically the Soviets er Russians and Israel have a complicated frenemy relationship...

Israel's survival relies on behaving based on reality...

the Soviets er Russians can get access to a lot of US MilTech by cultivating friendly relations with the IDF and Mossad.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 05:55 AM (g8Hfr)

181 *looks at all the failed cities in the US and UK and France*

It doesn't take much to strip away the thin veneer of civilisation and reveal the savage.

Posted by: Anna Puma at September 30, 2015 05:55 AM (C/DS0)

182 135 This will be Russia's Vietnam!!!

Posted by: Guy who always says... at September 30, 2015 10:44 AM (3myMJ)


No that was Afghanistan 

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 05:56 AM (jJRIy)

183 from the Jerusalem Post Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen Gadi Eisenkott flew to Russia last week for intensive meetings with Russian officials on efforts to coordinate with Moscow amid its military roll-out in Syria. After the meetings it was concluded that the IDF and Russian military would set up a joint working group to coordinate their Syria-related activities in the aerial, naval, and electromagnetic arenas, a senior defense source said.

Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 05:56 AM (zOTsN)

184 Maybe the Russian's did warn us, but the most transparent administration in history is one of the most obfuscating or downright dishonest of any I can think of.

Frankly, at this point I trust Putin to be honest a lot more than anyone in this fucking government.

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 30, 2015 05:56 AM (XiVKO)

185 Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 10:25 AM (PJ0bc)

Israel isn't civilized?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 30, 2015 05:57 AM (Zu3d9)

186 >>No the preferable action would have been to either a) leave saddam in place b) find a strong arm dictator, most likely a Ba'athist (or someone else who was not a jihadist and not some ridiculous Shia tribesman) to replace Saddam. And I lean toward a) personally. Sure. Because leaving terror sponsoring dictators who had already started one war and were in a state of cease fire with the west, cease fire not peace, and had repeatedly lied and violated every single UN sanction they agreed to and even shot at US planes was a great long term strategy. Ignoring what was actually happening at the time is not a strategy.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 05:57 AM (/tuJf)

187 Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 10:53 AM (4nmNX) We don't need it. We have our own oil. And the only large amount of oil in the neighborhood is either in Kurdish territory or in Iranian territory. Iran is a Russian ally, and I doubt the Russians would risk a war with NATO ally Turkey to get to the oil in Kurdistan-region of Iraq. Either way, that's a long ways off. Russia has had bases in Syria and Iran for decades and has never made a move to start WWIII by invading the Kurdish part of Iraq.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:57 AM (AkOaV)

188 hello we switched to side with Iran so Israel switched to Russia

Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 05:57 AM (zOTsN)

189 There is no way to know definitively of course, but Bush's grand plan was correct IMO - though some of the tactical decisions didn't work out. Bomb Afghanistan and go there when needed, but that was pretty much over by 2003. Iraq was where it was necessary for us to establish our ME presence. It was going to require our presence there for a generation or more (see Korea). Troop presence is not constant war. The war was won. And while I would like to blame everything on Obama, he campaigned on removing our troops. So the country voted for it - and overwhelmingly. I'm not interested in going back over there - but I have a sneaky suspicion that we will again.

Posted by: SH at September 30, 2015 05:57 AM (bZWvh)

190 Russia gave the US notice too. It gave us notice to vacate the skies over Syria.

Posted by: Meremortal at September 30, 2015 05:58 AM (3myMJ)

191 Ignoring what was actually happening at the time is not a strategy. Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 10:57 AM (/tuJf) So a failed state run by Sunni jihadists and Shia warlords is preferable? And thats AFTER 10+ years of your plan, and trillions of US dollars, and thousands of US lives?

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 05:58 AM (AkOaV)

192 I think the anti-air is aimed more at the Israelis.

Posted by: mojo at September 30, 2015 05:59 AM (OmBeX)

193 @183

So what this means, not reported in US, is that Israel has finally figured out Obama hates their guts and they are now Russian allies.




Obama in less that eight years has destroyed every relationship the country had.




Truly he is a total disaster.

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 05:59 AM (jJRIy)

194 Anschluss mein komerads

Posted by: Anna Puma at September 30, 2015 05:59 AM (C/DS0)

195 Wow. If George H.W. Bush was dinged for having a wimp factor, how to describe the ultimate pussy factor of Obama?

Posted by: Alex at September 30, 2015 05:59 AM (lDNRa)

196 At least somebody is bombing ISIS now. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 10:03 AM (88fBD) Every dead jihadi is a win for civilization.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at September 30, 2015 06:00 AM (0yhH4)

197 Israel and Russia have formed a joint working group that will have regular meetings

Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 06:00 AM (zOTsN)

198 Didn't Netanyahu meet with Putin last week? I am thinking 3 dimensional chess here...

Posted by: FCF at September 30, 2015 06:00 AM (kejii)

199 they arent going into Tel Aviv they are working together Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 10:55 AM (zOTsN) I know that (if that was aimed at me). Israel -- and everyone else in the neighborhood -- realizes having Assad in power is preferable to having Sunni jihadists in the Golan Heights and elsewhere along the Israel / Jordan / Lebanon borders.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 06:01 AM (AkOaV)

200 What should we do? Help our friends in Iraq push out ISIS and build our relationships with the country to push out Iran. Hold the borders and then watch Russia, Iran, Syria, and ISIS fight each other. Could also use Iraq as a repository for refugees.

Posted by: Wodun at September 30, 2015 06:01 AM (DD0s8)

201 we switched to side with Iran so Israel switched to Russia Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 10:57 AM (zOTsN) Yep. That's the big story here. Israel used to be a Russian client and it will be again, thanks to Captain Fuckup and Horse Boy.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at September 30, 2015 06:01 AM (ham8J)

202 STEP 1:

-Have an American administration that supports American interests.



We're pretty much failing at that point.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at September 30, 2015 06:01 AM (oVJmc)

203 Does anyone really think there will be any difference in Syria if Assad falls? As Wildebeest would say: What difference does it make? At least he was;t slaughtering Christians. He is an equal opportunity oppressor.

Posted by: ploome at September 30, 2015 06:02 AM (YMH9o)

204 Just as in Vietnam, damn near every fight since Kansas[b/] we won the war and lost the peace because fucking politicians. Democrats

Fixed for FullBush CrossBows.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:02 AM (DL2i+)

205 So now Russia is going to enjoy all the war profiteering?

Posted by: Meremortal at September 30, 2015 06:02 AM (3myMJ)

206 Posted by: Make America Great Again at September 30, 2015 10:53 AM (LXJ1e)

Same here, after being willowed:


Personally, I believe that unless the American public demonstrates their full support for all conservative issues by electing a Republican super majority in the House, Senate, and gives the Republicans at least a 47 state mandate for the White House from 2016 to 2024, the GOP should not risk dying on any hills to preserve the viability of the conservative movement!

Posted by: Hrothgar, a moderate mainstream Republican [/u][/i][/s][/b] at September 30, 2015 06:02 AM (ftVQq)

207 Barack Obama, terror of the teleprompter, bane of umbrella's, toughest of tough-guy faces.

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 30, 2015 06:02 AM (XiVKO)

208 >>No the preferable action would have been to either a) leave saddam in place b) find a strong arm dictator, most likely a Ba'athist (or someone else who was not a jihadist and not some ridiculous Shia tribesman) to replace Saddam. And I lean toward a) personally. Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 10:57 AM (/tuJf) Uh ... the minute that hussein lit just about eery oil well in Kuwait on fire and intentionally dumped tens of millions of barrels of oil into the gulf, all as he was being allowed to retreat in one of the most humiliating military defeats in all of history, it was clear to anyone with even half a brain that that hussein could not be left in control of one of the most strategically sensitive areas of the world. It took 9/11 for George W to have this driven home to him - to realize that the threat from taht hussein should have been considered well above our threshold - but that should have been known back int he first Gulf War when it happened. Saddam had to go. Period. He was one of the major legs in teh Arab/Persian/muslim world's threats against us and the West, in general. There is no question that that hussein needed to be taken out. What had to be done after was to totally defang Iraq - i.e. take control of the oil fields away from them.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 30, 2015 06:02 AM (zc3Db)

209 Posted by: Wodun at September 30, 2015 11:01 AM (DD0s The Iraqi government in Baghdad is an Iranian ally, not an enemy of Iran.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 06:02 AM (AkOaV)

210 Simple solution - stop giving a shit about civilian casualties. The current conflictis not getting resolved, because of our restraint. Our restraint is getting a LOT of people killed.Posted by: George Orwell's Ghost at September 30, 2015 10:46 AM (FzvkV) Watched a History Channel special the other night on Hitlers final days and the final days of WWII in Europe. Leaving out the Russia atrocities toward civilians as they marched toward Berlin, what struck me was how destroyed EVERYTHING was when the war ended. I don't know if there were any buildings in Berlin that still had a roof on them. No one was worried about killing civilians when they were carpet bombing the place, they worried about killing as many Nazi's as possible AND armed citizens so that the troops could enter Berlin with as few casualties as possible. It ended the war there. It stopped the atrocities being perpetuated on the remaining civilian population and the Germans began the task of rebuilding their society. You cannot fight a war with the PC rules our military now has in place. Moreover, you cannot win and more importantly, END one and allow a decent society to emerge with the lessons of the past.

Posted by: Jen the original at September 30, 2015 06:03 AM (rFdsN)

211 no Russia told us today to vacate the airspace Russia told Israel a WEEK AGO, and they have formed a working group together I am telling you they are working together Israel has figured out that Obama is more likely to bomb Israel than to stop an Iranian nuke Did Russia promise to let Israel get rid of an Iranian nuke and not interfere? boy. These are very very dangerous times

Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 06:03 AM (zOTsN)

212 Great cogent piece by Drew today on why there is no need to escalate in Syria.

Posted by: Draki at September 30, 2015 06:03 AM (ihknJ)

213 At least 15 "parcel" bombings in China. AFP article from Times of India in link

Posted by: Baldy at September 30, 2015 06:03 AM (sEXjW)

214 PS: "The US-led Coalition" they call it. Repeatedly. Snort Who else is playing?

Posted by: mojo at September 30, 2015 06:03 AM (OmBeX)

215 Holy Shit!  Call my lawyer.  The sun just came out.

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 06:04 AM (jJRIy)

216 175. But get used to seeing Gazprom pipelines, shipping ports, and infrastructure. Shortly thereafter, NATO member states absent the U.S. will "decide" to disband the entity. Why is that the problem of American taxpayers? We have enough domestic energy production to meet our own needs and when you include trade with Canada we have more than enough so who cares if Russia controls Europe's energy market? Also, just let NATO die; it is a useless institution. Western Europe certainly does not want to be in it except MAYBE England and all Western Europe wants is for us to subsidize their defense budgets while they spend money on welfare and "refugees". We should be working with the few European countries who don't want to commit societal suicide. Believe it or not all those countries are post-Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including Russia. All they need now are higher birth rates but they appear to have the cultural appreciation of their own past and enough of a hatred/dislike of Islam and Western progressivism to resist the burning times.

Posted by: "Syrian" "Refugee" at September 30, 2015 06:04 AM (r9mDd)

217 I'd really like to know when the last time a long term, less than full scale declared war conflict worked out for us ? Anyone ? Anyone at all ? Posted by: Irony at 10:52 AM ________ I don't know of the last time. There have been so many successes. Korea. That was a total success. Vietnam. A couple things to note: The objective was to stop the spread of communism. Though ultimately communism spread and took the country we were there to defend from it, communism didn't spread much further. A long-term takeaway from that is an incredible amount of goodwill among the Vietnamese people. Kuwait. Bosnia. Kosovo. (If you're asking the last time a war went perfectly swimmingly swell for the United States, the answer is Never.)

Posted by: FireHorse at September 30, 2015 06:04 AM (/LXLs)

218 It's a conundrum that's going to take creative strategic thinking to find a path between "do nothing" and "bomb/invade all the places". I'm not sure that path exists but unless we start looking for it, we're never going to find it. ---------------- That path did exist. It was the path we were on. On one hand, the past is over, but we need to understand that the mistake was made when we left Iraq. Its important to understand that. Because if (and when) we end up going back, I want it to be the final time.

Posted by: SH at September 30, 2015 06:04 AM (bZWvh)

219 202 Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at September 30, 2015 11:01 AM (oVJmc)

Read One Year After....

it's edifying that Furchtner essentially is where I have been at since 2009...

he understands that the left jerks off to loose ROE here in CONUS that they'd never tolerate against the OPFOR>..

Obama ran OPENLY in 2012 on "managing the US' decline" and won....

step .5 not even one to being a great power is wanting to be a power...

I'd wager we've lost step .5 let alone 1

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:04 AM (g8Hfr)

220 God help us if any of our spec ops on the ground are killed or a U. S. plane shot down.

No one will be more upset than Choom Boy, before he goes back to watching ESPN.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 30, 2015 06:04 AM (FsuaD)

221 The decision to leave Iraq by the Obama administration took away our option of dealing with ISIS.

Posted by: DonS at September 30, 2015 06:05 AM (Q2pWM)

222 regarding: 199 they arent going into Tel Aviv they are working together Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 10:55 AM (zOTsN) I know that (if that was aimed at me). Israel -- and everyone else in the neighborhood -- realizes having Assad in power is preferable to having Sunni jihadists in the Golan Heights and elsewhere along the Israel / Jordan / Lebanon borders. .................exactly

Posted by: ploome at September 30, 2015 06:05 AM (YMH9o)

223 Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 11:03 AM (zOTsN) Well yes, I was being sarcastic.

Posted by: Meremortal at September 30, 2015 06:05 AM (3myMJ)

224 This will be Russia's Vietnam!!! Posted by: Guy who always says... at September 30, 2015 10:44 AM (3myMJ) No that was Afghanistan Posted by: Nip Sip So Syria will be Russia's Iraq?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at September 30, 2015 06:05 AM (W5DcG)

225 Yep. That's the big story here. Israel used to be a Russian client and it will be again, thanks to Captain Fuckup and Horse Boy. Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at September 30, 2015 11:01 AM (ham8J) Israel was a French client. Close enough.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 30, 2015 06:05 AM (zc3Db)

226 There is no question that that hussein needed to be taken out. What had to be done after was to totally defang Iraq - i.e. take control of the oil fields away from them.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 30, 2015 11:02 AM (zc3Db)


Ahem!

Posted by: Master Strategist Gen Colon Powell at September 30, 2015 06:05 AM (ftVQq)

227 Everyone tends to assume a no-fly zone would only have negative consequences. Assad's armor is such that I suspect the consequences would be mostly neutral to slightly beneficial. Yes you help the ISIS/AQ fighters, but if Drew's "Keep drawing the fight out so they kill more of each other" strategy is something your going for that may not be a bad thing. (A no fly zone is easily stoppable too if ISIS/AQ gets anything close to an upper hand.) It's kinda a "sort-win/not lose" (as opposed to a win/win) situation. You can at least scale back the atrocities and achieve the whole "drag it out" plan. Russian involvement ends the "drag it out" plan, and frankly is likely to only increase the refugee crisis, which, seriously needs to be a consideration here. Even if you reject the humanitarian arguments for caring about the refugee crisis, it's going to lead to (speed up?) the collapse of Europe, and it's already hitting our shores too.

Posted by: tsrlbke PhD(c), rogue bioethicist at September 30, 2015 06:06 AM (tM4uk)

228 @217

I am not sure if you read public school history books.



Korean WAS NOT a total success.  AKA, see North Korea's existence and Truman's sell out.

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 06:06 AM (jJRIy)

229 Looking at Israel's stance today, is just like looking back at a relationship after your girlfriend dumped you.

She's sending the signals and telling you what's coming the whole time, and you don't notice until it's too late.

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 30, 2015 06:06 AM (XiVKO)

230 This is not Presdent obama's fault that Russia is bombing Syria. Bush lied to Presdent Obama before leaving office and he is just finding out how bad Bush screwed up in Syrias. Bush lied and now you want to blame our Present of Color for something hye did not do. Bush lied and must be accountable for his lies to our Presdent of Color.

Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, VT at September 30, 2015 06:06 AM (EIFYf)

231 11:00 am || Receives the Presidential Daily Briefing 4:10 pm || Delivers remarks to Democratic State Legislators; Eisenhower Executive Office Building

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at September 30, 2015 06:06 AM (fWAjv)

232 Iran is a Russian ally, and I doubt the Russians would risk a war with NATO ally Turkey to get to the oil in Kurdistan-region of Iraq. Russia doesn't want Iranian and Kurdish oil flowing to them. They want it to stop flowing, period. They've been getting slaughtered as oil prices have dropped and want those prices back up.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12-13 at September 30, 2015 06:07 AM (9krrF)

233 (If you're asking the last time a war went perfectly swimmingly swell for the United States, the answer is Never.) We kicked ass in the First Barbary War.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at September 30, 2015 06:07 AM (ham8J)

234 Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 11:03 AM (zOTsN) No, the Israelis are good at working with everyone. At one point, they were helping the Free Syrian Army (even knowing that they were mostly sunni jihadists), then they were helping assad, and now they're working with the Russians. They are doing what they need to do to survive. In the long term though, Russia will not openly ally themselves with Israel. They are allied with Shia Muslims -- so Damascus, Tehran, and Baghdad. Thats because *WE* historically allied ourselves with the Sunni Muslims (lot more of them).

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 06:07 AM (AkOaV)

235 187: "Russia has had bases in Syria and Iran for decades and has never made a move to start WWIII by invading the Kurdish part of Iraq." Why invade when you can "assist"? "We don't need it. We have our own oil.' That's rather besides the point. There is a larger world out there that what is in our borders. If we don't exercise our will upon it, someone else will. What does America actually make? Like it or not, our economy and our way of life is inexorably tied to what goes on in the rest of the world. What happens "over there" WILL affect us here.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at September 30, 2015 06:07 AM (4nmNX)

236 Good news: I know it's not my Kindle Fire that is FU'd because I'm having the same problem on this computer. Bad news: This website is FU'd.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at September 30, 2015 06:07 AM (XUKZU)

237 By treaty Korea was in the Russian Zone. Not our responsibility.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 06:07 AM (PJ0bc)

238 The decision to leave Iraq by the Obama administration took away our option of dealing with ISIS. ------ It took away a lot of options.

Posted by: SH at September 30, 2015 06:07 AM (bZWvh)

239 Russia doesn't want Iranian and Kurdish oil flowing to them. They want it to stop flowing, period. They've been getting slaughtered as oil prices have dropped and want those prices back up. Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12-13 at September 30, 2015 11:07 AM (9krrF) Only way to do that is to go to KSA.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 06:08 AM (AkOaV)

240 Bad news: This website is FU'd.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at September 30, 2015 11:07 AM (XUKZU)



Yep.  I've been having trouble loading the home page here all week.  And refreshing the page is a joke.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 30, 2015 06:08 AM (FsuaD)

241 Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at September 30, 2015 11:06 AM (fWAjv)


Too cloudy and too much chance of rain for golf!

Posted by: Hrothgar [/u][/i][/s][/b] at September 30, 2015 06:08 AM (ftVQq)

242 225 Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 30, 2015 11:05 AM (zc3Db)

In the aftermath of WW2-Israeli independence the Israelis were clients of the Czechs who funneled future Warsaw Pact gear to the IDF....

like I said "complicated frenemy" status...

Uncle Joe was a pro-Zionist since he thought Israel would be a Soviet state.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:09 AM (g8Hfr)

243 I know people are upset about this and think Obama should have done something. Here's my question...what's that something entail? --- Not setting a redline you aren't willing to enforce?

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at September 30, 2015 06:09 AM (VAsIq)

244 Korean WAS NOT a total success. AKA, see North Korea's existence and Truman's sell out. - And don't forget me. - Atom Bomb Annie

Posted by: The Great White Snark at September 30, 2015 06:09 AM (XUKZU)

245
I don't know why any of us would be bothered by it, I don't care if the russkies help assad kill ISIS.  Assad is evil slime, but one of the evil slime that never threatened us, but Odumbass decided to destabilize that country along with Egypt, Libya and what was left of Iraq.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at September 30, 2015 06:09 AM (ODxAs)

246 The decision to leave Iraq by the Obama administration took away our option of dealing with ISIS.

Posted by: DonS at September 30, 2015 11:05 AM (Q2pWM)


Why should we have stayed in Iraq other than to have helped Iraq?  Did America want a longer occupation?  I doubt it.  From what we've seen, shiite and sunni iraq were meant to split.  None of them want to share a country.

Posted by: Draki at September 30, 2015 06:09 AM (ihknJ)

247 "We don't need it. We have our own oil.' That's rather besides the point. There is a larger world out there that what is in our borders. ------ From a military standpoint, it is always good to have your own strategic natural resources. From an economic standpoint, it doesn't matter so much.

Posted by: SH at September 30, 2015 06:09 AM (bZWvh)

248 >>So a failed state run by Sunni jihadists and Shia warlords is preferable? >>And thats AFTER 10+ years of your plan, and trillions of US dollars, and thousands of US lives? You keep pretending that Obama didn't reverse every single thing that was done in Iraq and caused this mess. You don't build a strategy on what some hypothetical pseudo-Marxist president might do in the future. That's like saying we should not have a military because some future president might abuse it. In what world do you live in where we could have gotten away with installing yet another dictator in the Middle East and not had blowback from both the world community and the terrorists who have been attacking every dictator they could get their hands on? Qaddafis dead, Assad is under attack, Yemen is toast and on and on. al Qaeda and other terror organizations have been on the rise for decades and many of them hate their western installed dictators as much as they hate us. The big rift between Zawahiri and bin Laden is that Zawahiri wanted to kill Muslim apostates before going after the west. bin Laden won that argument unfortunately and we got 9-11. Ask the Shah, well he's dead so you can't, but it didn't work so good for him and now Iran is a terror ruled state and we are their main target. The Shah was the very first dictator we installed in the Middle East, the very first CIA op, and look where that got us. History didn't start yesterday. Ignoring the Middle East or propping up installed dictators is not working anymore. They helped inspire the growth and ire of Islamic nuts. We can either accept that the page has been turned and help shape the new look of the Middle East as a more modern society or we can bunker down in Fortress America. Pretending we can just ignore things and they won't happen is pre-9-11 thinking.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 06:09 AM (/tuJf)

249 Only way to do that is to go to KSA. Hello, Iran. Hater of the House of Saud.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12-13 at September 30, 2015 06:09 AM (9krrF)

250 He is probably crafting a strongly worded letter as we speak.

Posted by: Boss Moss at September 30, 2015 06:10 AM (PJ0bc)

251 (If you're asking the last time a war went perfectly swimmingly swell for the United States, the answer is Never.) ********** Antietam was a big success for both sides.....

Posted by: Truck Monkey is a Mime..... Serious at September 30, 2015 06:10 AM (fLKzW)

252 Korean WAS NOT a total success. AKA, see North Korea's existence and Truman's sell out. Isn't that war technically still ongoing? They just signed a time-out of some sort.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at September 30, 2015 06:10 AM (W5DcG)

253 Bad news: This website is FU'd. I had to get an ad blocker to fix the site, unfortunately.

Posted by: Revelation 16:18 at September 30, 2015 06:10 AM (S+N7W)

254 Okay, so they were targeting al Nusra targets. Which makes sense, they're in much closer to Damascus than ISIS. Posted by: Harry Paratestes at September 30, 2015 10:20 AM (AkOaV) Go after the most immediate threat first, makes sense. ISIS can wait. Russia is there, after all, to look after their interest, and those of their client Assad. But I'm pretty sure they will go after any ISIS that challenge them. Obama pulled out, and left a power vacuum. So when Nature fills that vacuum, there should be no complaining that the nature of the replacement power is not of one's choosing. Least wise, the complaints need to be directed at Obama.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at September 30, 2015 06:10 AM (0yhH4)

255 Face it, TFG has neither the inclination or the ability for strategic thought. It's 7 year old Marvin Melnick vs. Bobby fucking Fischer. Mate in 4 moves. If it's more complicated than shredded wheat for breakfast, forget about it, Prezident Populous will be on the links. What an ass.

Posted by: mojo at September 30, 2015 06:10 AM (OmBeX)

256 Well Putin is not fighting ISIS yet. ISIS does not have airplanes. What Putin is doing is setting up an A2//AD bubble in Syria and effectively the Eastern Mediterranean. This happens to be the third one he has put in place. He has one near Kalingrad that covers the Baltics and one in Crimea that covers the Black Sea. This defense system is not only anti-air it is anti- ship This effectively cuts off Georgia, isolates Ukraine further, and pinches Turkey. As the Balkans get destabilized by refugees....Serbia may also need Putin's "assistance ".

Posted by: Your Friendly Danube River Guide at September 30, 2015 06:11 AM (mcm0N)

257 Not setting a redline you aren't willing to enforce?

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at September 30, 2015 11:09 AM (VAsIq)



Capt. Kickass told us it wasn't his red line, it was "the world's."

Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 30, 2015 06:11 AM (FsuaD)

258 I know people are upset about this and think Obama should have done something. Here's my question...what's that something entail? --- Not setting a redline you aren't willing to enforce? ----- Yeah, I don't think too many are asking for Obama to do something. We are asking him to stop doing dumb things.

Posted by: SH at September 30, 2015 06:11 AM (bZWvh)

259 The United Arab Republic is now and has always been a shit hole since the Frogs left. And my son is a worthless tool like your President Obummer. Enjoy!

Posted by: Zombie Hafez al-Assad at September 30, 2015 06:11 AM (D0NZx)

260 And I lean toward a) personally.

Was it the rape campaigns, the terrorism sponsorship or directing attacks on the US that did it for you.

I know I was real fond of picking up my mail with gloves and shaking it outside for a couple of weeks there.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:11 AM (DL2i+)

261 Broken record Mary. Maybe you should talk to Dorcus and drum up some new ideas?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 06:11 AM (dOD0J)

262 Odumbass decided to destabilize that country along with Egypt, Libya and what was left of Iraq.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at September 30, 2015 11:09 AM (ODxAs)


This was probably more of a DOD/CIA idea to support the arab spring and the President got pulled into it because he thought it was a good idea.  I really like this idea of giving more islam to these countries.  It hurts them and helps us.

Posted by: Draki at September 30, 2015 06:11 AM (ihknJ)

263 255 Posted by: mojo at September 30, 2015 11:10 AM (OmBeX)

I am playing chess, and Giggles is flipping a coin....

not even checkers.

//Vlad

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:12 AM (g8Hfr)

264 Oh man, amongst all his other failings, I forgot all about "the world's" red line.

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 30, 2015 06:12 AM (XiVKO)

265 Now we can watch someone else try to take down ISIS with airstrikes.

Posted by: Meremortal at September 30, 2015 06:12 AM (3myMJ)

266 Isn't that war technically still ongoing? They just signed a time-out of some sort.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at September 30, 2015 11:10 AM (W5DcG)


Yep.

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 06:12 AM (jJRIy)

267 Good morning, fellow 'Rons and 'Ettes!

It's that time of year again, and we're planning a reprise of last year's SW Ohio MoMe:

Saturday evening, October 17, 7-10 (ish), Beavercreek (I've also locked down a better venue).

Interested parties please let me know: swohmome @ mail.com (no spaces).

Thanks!

Posted by: speedster1 at September 30, 2015 06:13 AM (1brdf)

268 It's too back that the inventor of the Susan Olivia Cuthberthson-Klein sock didn't make her middle name Ulrica.


Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 06:13 AM (dOD0J)

269 Holy Shit! Call my lawyer. The sun just came out. - You know, if God had really known what he was doing he would have fixed that but NOOOOOOO! Now it's up to the EPA.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at September 30, 2015 06:13 AM (XUKZU)

270 Why should we have stayed in Iraq other than to have helped Iraq? Did America want a longer occupation? --------- On the second question - no. But on the first, we should have stayed for all the problems that exist now. Korea was the model of success we should have tried to emulate. We should have stayed to be a check in the region, to keep other powers out, to support our friend in Israel, and to control the Persian Gulf.

Posted by: SH at September 30, 2015 06:13 AM (bZWvh)

271 I dont blame Israel one bit I am sure they have already heard about the JEF protecting Iran and Muslim Brotherhood

Posted by: ThunderB at September 30, 2015 06:13 AM (zOTsN)

272 Might as well scream when I'm that close to the barrel edge.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:14 AM (DL2i+)

273 "What we're not very good at, because it's impossible to be good at, is building civil societies in the Mideast and Muslim nations like Afghanistan."

There were a few lonely voices on the right saying precisely this in 2002.

Voices counseling that the idea of getting sucked into "nation-building", a practice which George W. Bush as a candidate had specifically promised to abjure, was unwise.

Doubly and triply unwise in the case of trying to nation-build in the Islamosphere, those voices suggested.

Voices which were roundly ignored, and loudly derided, because Freedom Fries, and because America Fuck Yeah.

How's that working out again?

Posted by: torquewrench at September 30, 2015 06:14 AM (noWW6)

274 You keep pretending that Obama didn't reverse every single thing that was done in Iraq and caused this mess. You don't build a strategy on what some hypothetical pseudo-Marxist president might do in the future. Actually, we have to do that. We have to recognize that every eight years the other party gets power as almost a rule. If you have a plan, that's your timeline to operate, because the other side will mess it up just to score points back home. If a plan takes longer than eight years, assume it will fail. That's a lesson of our foreign policy all over the place, where presidents radically change course from each other and leave allies screwed.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 06:14 AM (88fBD)

275 Capt. Kickass told us it wasn't his red line, it was "the world's." - And they let him down again. He can't rely on anybody.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at September 30, 2015 06:15 AM (XUKZU)

276 Yeah, I don't think too many are asking for Obama to do something. We are asking him to stop doing dumb things. Posted by: SH Then I'm out of ideas.

Posted by: Pres'nt Obama at September 30, 2015 06:15 AM (VAsIq)

277 This was probably more of a DOD/CIA idea to support the arab spring and the President got pulled into it because he thought it was a good idea. I really like this idea of giving more islam to these countries. It hurts them and helps us. I tend to doubt that. What's not well known is that Code Pink was in country prior to every instance of "Arab Spring" demonstrations.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy [/i][/s][/b][/u] at September 30, 2015 06:15 AM (LUgeY)

278 Capt. Kickass told us it wasn't his red line, it was "the world's." - And they let him down again. He can't rely on anybody. Posted by: The Great White Snark I'm a better world than the world.

Posted by: Pres'nt Obama at September 30, 2015 06:16 AM (VAsIq)

279 New thread up

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 06:16 AM (dOD0J)

280 I'm a better Frenchman than the French.

Posted by: Pres'nt Obama at September 30, 2015 06:16 AM (VAsIq)

281 Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 11:13 AM (dOD0J)

Would you have a problem with that?

Posted by: Frederick Underwood Cuthberthson-Klein [/u][/i][/s][/b] at September 30, 2015 06:16 AM (ftVQq)

282 Exactly why did we want to remove Assad? Why is he our Enemy? I have no idea. So let Putin invest in his client and lets go raid the Scandi countries and bring back lots of hot blondes cuz hot.

Posted by: Puddin Head at September 30, 2015 06:17 AM (oDCMR)

283 Korean WAS NOT a total success. AKA, see North Korea's existence and Truman's sell out. Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 11:06 AM ________ The goal - the only goal - was to preserve South Korea. It's still there.

Posted by: FireHorse at September 30, 2015 06:17 AM (/LXLs)

284 Just to cheer the horde up, Senate rolls and passes Continuing Resolution to keep government open till 12/11




http://tinyurl.com/pt6n27d

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 06:17 AM (jJRIy)

285 >>If a plan takes longer than eight years, assume it will fail. That's a lesson of our foreign policy all over the place, where presidents radically change course from each other and leave allies screwed. Then we should just leave the Middle East forever. They don't measure time like we do, they are in it for the long haul. No, we didn't use to operate this way. We used to have presidents who, despite their political affiliations, actually had the best interests of this country involved and many of our foreign policy initiatives lasted generations. If we are now on 4 or 8 year time lines, our broad foreign policy everywhere is doomed.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 06:17 AM (/tuJf)

286 The goal - the only goal - was to preserve South Korea.

It's still there.

Posted by: FireHorse at September 30, 2015 11:17 AM (/LXLs)


We read different history books.  The goal was to defeat communism.


We didn't.

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 06:18 AM (jJRIy)

287 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 11:14 AM (88fBD)



I've said before that you really can blame Bush for this mess, because he should have known that as soon as Democrats came to power again (and they would) they'd do their damnedest to screw up any US military event or Republican foreign policy that even looked like a victory for the West.

Posted by: Hrothgar [/u][/i][/s][/b] at September 30, 2015 06:20 AM (ftVQq)

288 Posted by: Frederick Underwood Cuthberthson-Klein at September 30, 2015 11:16 AM (ftVQq)

We have a winner of the month.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. Old and unimproved. at September 30, 2015 06:20 AM (dOD0J)

289 We read different history books. The goal was to defeat communism.
We didn't.

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 11:18 AM (jJRIy)


You and I read the same books!

Posted by: Hrothgar [/u][/i][/s][/b] at September 30, 2015 06:20 AM (ftVQq)

290 Leaving out the Russia atrocities toward civilians as they marched toward Berlin, what struck me was how destroyed EVERYTHING was when the war ended. I don't know if there were any buildings in Berlin that still had a roof on them. No one was worried about killing civilians when they were carpet bombing the place, they worried about killing as many Nazi's as possible AND armed citizens so that the troops could enter Berlin with as few casualties as possible. It ended the war there. It stopped the atrocities being perpetuated on the remaining civilian population and the Germans began the task of rebuilding their society. - A fairly good mystery book set in Berlin a couple of months after the war ended is The Good German. (Ignore crappy movie based on this book.) It really paints a picture of the physical and psychological devastation.

Posted by: The Great White Snark at September 30, 2015 06:21 AM (XUKZU)

291 The protein disparity is going to defeat Korean communism all by itself.

That height difference is going to be to the NorK's what Dallas was to the Soviets.

Posted by: Chupacabras at September 30, 2015 06:22 AM (XiVKO)

292 Everything you see happening in Syria right now vis a vis the russians has absolutely nothing to do with Syria, and has everything to do with the "show" that Vlad is putting on for home consumption.  Russia's financial resources because of the energy price collapse and their very poor prior negotiations (forcing E Europe and main Europe to price their gas contracts off the price of oil has backfired 100 x over at this point.) are dropping precipitously.

Right now the best thing we can do is stand back and let Vlad continue to waste what little resources Russia has left.  A few bad turns in Syria and it could cause real problems for Vlad at home, which would be real helpful right now.  Unfortunately, while a humanitarian problem, Syria is not really a vital strategic interest at this point.

When your adversaries are making mistakes, get out of their way.

Posted by: JeffreyL at September 30, 2015 06:23 AM (mXv3y)

293 If a plan takes longer than eight years, assume it will fail. That's a lesson of our foreign policy all over the place, where presidents radically change course from each other and leave allies screwed. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 11:14 AM (88fBD) ------------------------------ That it. Others apparently think the next time will be different. The Democrats have show 2 things consistently: 1) They can win Presidential elections and, 2) They will implement liberal, progressive foreign policy goals and objectives. It was not rocket science that pulling out Iraq would create a massive power vacuum that would destabilize that country and region. It was a virtual certainty. The Dems did not care. They preferred to score cheap short-term political points against the Republicans. Every Republican foreign policy must take that into account.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at September 30, 2015 06:24 AM (LXJ1e)

294 The Russians don't take a dump without a plan.

Posted by: The Jackhole at September 30, 2015 06:24 AM (3mTyP)

295 The answer is more rubble, less trouble. We should have nuked the Taliban after 9/11 (even Jeremy Corbyn sort of agrees with this). 9/11 was an attack with a WMD by any rational definition so we were justified, no, obligated to retaliate in kind. Unfortunately, GWB (with some help from Cheney) chickened out. Especially if we gave them a public 72-hour ultimatum to turn over the AQ leadership, the number of people actually killed by this strategy would have been an order of magnitude less than what subsequently occurred. Now it's too late and millions more will die (especially in Europe) because of GWB's cowardice.

Posted by: Pluskat's Dog at September 30, 2015 06:24 AM (IbP8q)

296 No, we didn't use to operate this way. We used to have presidents who, despite their political affiliations, actually had the best interests of this country involved and many of our foreign policy initiatives lasted generations. The Constitution had the quaint idea that the President could broadly handle diplomacy, but Congress would decide what we do. We abandoned that idea in favor of eight year absolutism. Obama can wage wars or sign treaties as he wishes, hust like Bush could, and like the next guy will. American foreign policy will always be dysfunctional as long as we keep this system.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 30, 2015 06:25 AM (88fBD)

297 294 The Russians don't take a dump without a plan.

Posted by: The Jackhole at September 30, 2015 11:24 AM (3mTyP)


And a hot chick to wipe their ass.

Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 06:26 AM (jJRIy)

298 No, we didn't use to operate this way. We used to have presidents who, despite their political affiliations, actually had the best interests of this country involved and many of our foreign policy initiatives lasted generations. If we are now on 4 or 8 year time lines, our broad foreign policy everywhere is doomed. Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 11:17 AM (/tuJf) ----------------------------------- Since the Vietnam war all that has change. The Dem policy of capitulation has been their SOP since then, that is 40 years. There is no excuse to think that somehow all this has changed just with Obama.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at September 30, 2015 06:30 AM (LXJ1e)

299 Fox News is running McCain's ramblings on the Senate floor. He's babbling incoherently and basically needs to retire now. Just get him to the early bird buffet somewhere then on a plane back home. Shit, he's interrupting himself.

Posted by: Colonel Kurtz at September 30, 2015 06:30 AM (KY9Xl)

300 299 Posted by: Colonel Kurtz at September 30, 2015 11:30 AM (KY9Xl)

Pity he wears depends...

he literally can go for days now.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:31 AM (g8Hfr)

301 I really like this idea of giving more islam to these countries. It hurts them and helps us.

I'm of the opinion the less islam in the world the better.  In fact, I prefer the number to be zero.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at September 30, 2015 06:32 AM (ODxAs)

302 We read different history books. The goal was to defeat communism. We didn't. Posted by: Nip Sip at September 30, 2015 11:18 AM ________ Indeed. Mine mentioned "containment" a lot. Evidently I was misinformed.

Posted by: FireHorse at September 30, 2015 06:32 AM (/LXLs)

303 >>Since the Vietnam war all that has change. The Dem policy of capitulation has been their SOP since then, that is 40 years. There is no excuse to think that somehow all this has changed just with Obama. Then there is no reason to do anything to protect this country because a Dem will come along to undo it. Might as well just give up.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 06:32 AM (/tuJf)

304 I also love how FoxNews pretends Americans give two shits what Juan Queeg thinks on anything....

Romney got more votes than Juan.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:33 AM (g8Hfr)

305 303 Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 11:32 AM (/tuJf)

If the best the GOP can do is attack the right with more glee than defacto legit traitors to US interests then yes Jack we may as well give up....

Ogabe and friends are more interested in destroying US POL business than  fighting for American interests....

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:34 AM (g8Hfr)

306 Then there is no reason to do anything to protect this country because a Dem will come along to undo it. Might as well just give up. Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 11:32 AM (/tuJf) Not give up, but at least realize long-term occupation of another country is off the table.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at September 30, 2015 06:35 AM (LXJ1e)

307 If you haven't seen the Ted Cruz speech on the Senate floor, watch it NOW. He rips the Republican leadership of Boehner and McConnell a new one and describes their cowardice exactly like it is. If he's on the ballot, Cruz has my vote for President.

Posted by: mac at September 30, 2015 06:36 AM (ilMXv)

308 Peace through strength, who said it? How long did that policy work? Now we have Smart Diplomacy which is so old it looks new again. And--we'll probably elect Biden to play seventh dimensional chess against the Russians because --hell--the Russians can't play chess.

Posted by: Your Friendly Danube River Guide at September 30, 2015 06:37 AM (mcm0N)

309 307 Posted by: mac at September 30, 2015 11:36 AM (ilMXv)

Ideally the Luap Darns will break for Cruz...

I'd have preferred Haley or Walker or Perry but we live in the world that is not that we wish.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:37 AM (g8Hfr)

310 306 Posted by: Make America Great Again at September 30, 2015 11:35 AM (LXJ1e)

The Democrats have a long term occupational plan for a nation my friend...

sadly that nation is the United States vice Amigo Grande!

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:38 AM (g8Hfr)

311 >>Not give up, but at least realize long-term occupation of another country is off the table. Sorry, in a world where the Russians who always have been our chief adversary (Romney was right) are willing to invade and occupy countries forever and with the Middle East which measures time in centuries, yes, we need to give up the idea that we are a super power if we aren't going to match their will. Because we aren't one anymore.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 06:39 AM (/tuJf)

312 Ideally the Luap Darns will break for Cruz... Oops. Rand just declared war on Cruz. http://tinyurl.com/nsspj77

Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12-13 at September 30, 2015 06:40 AM (9krrF)

313 312 Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12-13 at September 30, 2015 11:40 AM (9krrF)

Not Darn personally the little Luap cult...

frankly Darn is definitely Nor junior...

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:41 AM (g8Hfr)

314 Sorry, in a world where the Russians who always have been our chief adversary (Romney was right) are willing to invade and occupy countries forever and with the Middle East which measures time in centuries, yes, we need to give up the idea that we are a super power if we aren't going to match their will. Because we aren't one anymore. Posted by: JackStraw at September 30, 2015 11:39 AM (/tuJf) ---------------------- Well that's the case. It hurts but it is true. Just look at the Dem slate of candidates. Perhaps Jim Webb would not actively pursue a policy of capitulation, but he has no chance of winning.

Posted by: Make America Great Again at September 30, 2015 06:45 AM (LXJ1e)

315 We really need to split into two parties. The WarCocks can go their way, and us Mind Our Own Businessists can go ours. Honestly ... you people need to swear off all forms of birth control. Gonna' take a ton of progeny to populate the ranks of Team America World Police. And me and mine are sitting this shit out.

Posted by: Irony at September 30, 2015 06:45 AM (9miVc)

316 315 Posted by: Irony at September 30, 2015 11:45 AM (9miVc)

Peace through strength requires uh "strength."

One day you'll need to explain to me how SCOAMF's "warcock" working for Radical Muslim interests is a sane policy.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 06:48 AM (g8Hfr)

317 We "had" strength Sven. We pissed it away trying to civilize Iraq while fighting yet another police action in the 'Stan ... when we should have been waging Total War in the 'Stan as well as against their under-the-table Paki allies. For starters. Now we have a used up military that no longer thinks allies that fuck little boys is a bad thing, led by folks who think getting chics Ranger tabs and trannies enlisted is Priority Number One. No Sven ... My tribe will avoid that shit. And that shit is not going away. That shit seems to be a recurring theme. That shit I supported by half the populace. Now tell me Sven ... How will Team America World Police achieve these occupational successes with that military and that level of support ? Again ... Knock yourselves out. My tribe is out.

Posted by: Irony at September 30, 2015 06:57 AM (9miVc)

318 317 Posted by: Irony at September 30, 2015 11:57 AM (9miVc)

Your tribe?

Nice my personal part of a "tribe" is still in and has two combat tours and a combat action badge tiger.

You would be hard pressed to find a lesser fan of the GWB policy of taking nutpunches from the left while refusing to make the case to the American people that donks are borderline traitors.

I think the Staff Officer Corps in US Forces have devolved into a bunch of amoral sycophants who are not acting as agents of US interests or cultural values at all....

all that said, my analysis says that while "warcock" types are misguided donkey party are tacit traitors.

Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077[/i][/b][/s] at September 30, 2015 07:05 AM (g8Hfr)

319 The difference in Russia 1980 and now is Putin, he will not stop, he will win by any means necessary. He's not a girly boy

Posted by: gonzotx at September 30, 2015 07:21 AM (FtTwb)

320 We need to realize we're the heirs of the British Empire and start civilizing these places. What good is "holding" Afghanistan (e.g.) if the regime we're propping up is demolishing Christian churches and keeping women in slavery? We should have set up civilized laws, courts and schools, and upheld religious freedom. We ought to be a colonial power. It's not impossible. We brought civilization to Japan, which was just as bloodthirsty as the Islamic world. The British civilized India. What it takes is willpower. They're going to hate you for it, and you can't let that get to you.

Posted by: joeclark.phd at September 30, 2015 07:22 AM (qJggr)

321 So your saying those 5 guys we spent $$$ training may be Combat Ineffectual?

Posted by: Paladin at September 30, 2015 07:26 AM (lP8dE)

322 #303, or we start rounding up Democrats the way the right in Chile handled their treasonous leftists.

Fuck I am gonna get banned again.

Posted by: Colonel Kurtz at September 30, 2015 07:26 AM (KY9Xl)

323 Until then we can enjoy the spectacle of Russia and Iran getting bogged down in the mess that Syria is and will be for a good long while. Remember the Soviet experience in Afghanistan in the 80s? That didn't turn out well for the regime. You remember what we did in Afghanistan in the 80s? Are we going to do that now? No. So, why would we expect this to turn out the same way? Russia handled Chechnya. I have a hunch they can handle this. I also have a hunch there's a downside to them becoming the predominant foreign power in the Middle East.

Posted by: AD at September 30, 2015 07:27 AM (mY597)

324 We really need to split into two parties. The WarCocks can go their way, and us Mind Our Own Businessists can go ours. How very French of you.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at September 30, 2015 08:00 AM (rwI+c)

325 Putin is doing this to save Assad, but it will draw Russia into a war with ISIS which is a good thing for the world. There are a lot Chechens with ISIS, and I am sure Russia will use this occasion to wipe them out. Simply put, as bad as Assad is he is better than a AQ government, or have followed if a democratic regime is put into place in Syria. Secularist in Syria are a minority, Sunni Arab Muslims are the majority and they vote for Sharia Law and Islamic political parties...like the Muslim Brotherhood. Not everything the Russians do is bad for America, sometimes their moves help us indirectly. This will work out for us both ways...either Russia gets bogged down in Syria, or they crush ISIS...or both which is they end up destroying ISIS, and get bogged down a regional war with Sunni Arab Jihadists and maybe Turkey, who we should NOT help if they get into a war with Russia even if they are a part of NATO. Turkey was not there for us when we needed them, plus they have played a dubious role in supporting Arab Jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood. I think the British blundered in the Crimean War by siding with the Ottoman Turks, and I don't want America doing the same in the 21st century.

Posted by: William Eaton at September 30, 2015 08:36 AM (q52Ma)

326 Yeah, I know the Assads do bad things. I don't care. As long as he's killing people over there, it's none of my business.

Posted by: bjk at September 30, 2015 08:49 AM (x2rNW)

327 Syria is a suckfest convention, y'all. Glen the Desk Clerk: Hello, welcome to the International Inn. How many? Lieutenant Jim Dangle: There's 8 of us... Glen the Desk Clerk: 8, 8 people for a suckfest. Lieutenant Jim Dangle: No, no suckfest. We're here for a convention. Glen the Desk Clerk: I like convention too. I'm in a convention. A suckfest convention.

Posted by: General Zod at September 30, 2015 09:26 AM (Bdeb0)

328 Remember the Soviet experience in Afghanistan in the 80s? That didn't turn out well for the regime. --It didn't turn out well for the Afghans or their neighbours, either. People tend to forget that the Soviets had a habit of winning their wars - and that these costs were frequently passed on to the non-socialist (or semi-socialist) states to sort out. Wars waged by command economies, in defiance of broad local norms, are funny that way. The Soviet mission was to prop up the DRA - which they accomplished, leaving in good order. The DRA outlasted the USSR by a few years. And then it crumbled. And the West, by and large, ignored it. Until it was too late. It will happen again. A regime that knocks down ancient statues and destroys museums will wipe out people too. Some of them will be Americans.

Posted by: e at September 30, 2015 09:37 AM (fVEjU)

329

 

 

It is cute some think we can just go our own way and Islamic radicals won't wage war against us.

Posted by: DonS at September 30, 2015 11:26 AM (Q2pWM)

330

It is kinda like being in a dog fight and giving up both altitude and airspeed. You are now short of options.

Obama's given up our options in the region. He's left Iraq and the work that went into creating the Anbar Awakening has been lost; Iraq has turned to Iran; Russia is supporting Assad and building a relationship with Iran. Our allies, the Gulf states and Israel, have lost faith in us, and our weakness was made crystal clear by Obama's red line comments.

The Iran nuke deal probably won't interfere with Iran's development of a bomb but it will dump huge amounts of cash on them and Russia will move forward in giving them advanced air defenses. Combined with the air defenses being put up in Syria there will be a significantly increased threat to our and our allies air resources in the region.

Frankly the fix requires long term good foreign policy by the US to turn around and the risk level is now very, very high.

Posted by: DonS at September 30, 2015 11:36 AM (Q2pWM)

331 Good for Russia! Who cares if it's to keep America out? We weren't "fighting ISIS" there anyway. Remember, the reports of US killing ISIS was mostly made up to sound good to the press. That news came out only a couple of weeks ago. And I'm ALL for "propping up" Assad! Assad is fine by me. The fact Obama wants him gone is reason enough to support him -- Obama only wants him gone so that he can turn Syria into another Libya or Egypt-under-Morsi. Assad is fine. He wears Western suits, no beard, allows Christians to be Christians, and he fights ISIS. Can't ask for more that that!

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at September 30, 2015 01:17 PM (xetep)

332 We're so far down the failure rabbit hole that weve tied our own hands. The only effective thing we could have done is not have the current admin in office. The best policy we can do now is keep these clowns from staying in--electing litterally any (R) candidate is better because all the appointed officials can be fired on Jan 20. At the least all the foreign policy and national security ones must be, as they have failed beyond rehabilitation. Any (D) takes office and many of these failed officials will keep their jobs, even temporarily. Then we can work on firing all the (D) lifer gov bureaucrats, though that will take longer.

Posted by: FailRabbit at September 30, 2015 02:09 PM (hlMtE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




249kb generated in CPU 0.44, elapsed 1.7523 seconds.
64 queries taking 1.4479 seconds, 570 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.