International Isis/syria/iraq thread

[Rod1]

1) yes military generals are always 100% right esp on political matters

2) neither is putin so what we are left with is is one option among many that could be persued given the huge tech disparity and the correct diplomatic presentation

3) they are an affiliate who arent linked to al queda anymore ,nor have they ever expressed a desire to operate pitside syrias borders
Nor would their men even want to
.they signed up from smaller groups mergers to fight assad

Counting isis as a rebel group? Just like the kurds technicaly they are rebels but almost everyome counts them as a seperate party in the war...besides isis is dying they have no future.

4)we havent really tried hard to topple assad otherwise hed be gone
But as you russians cant bring stabiliy with his regime its simply prolonging the fighting ie having iranians and ruaf try and enforce the delusional dream of his rule everywhere again

1.- He is not just a general, he is the highest ranking military officer in the USA, he knows he cant secure a no-fly zone without taking on the Russians due to the presence of SAM batteries like the S-400.

2.- Yes, there is one option which has been in place for over half a century, which is to avoid each other.

3.- Yes, the jihadists decided to not be jihadists anymore, they just want to topple Assad and then return to a life of peaceful islamic existence doing charity.

4.- Kurds as opposed to ISIS have their own national identity and that goes beyond the scope of this war.

 

[Squall Leonhart]

1.- He is not just a general, he is the highest ranking military officer in the USA, he knows he cant secure a no-fly zone without taking on the Russians due to the presence of SAM batteries like the S-400.

2.- Yes, there is one option which has been in place for over half a century, which is to avoid each other.

3.- Yes, the jihadists decided to not be jihadists anymore, they just want to topple Assad and then return to a life of peaceful islamic existence doing charity.

4.- Kurds as opposed to ISIS have their own national identity and that goes beyond the scope of this war.

What is your take on the fact that the US might create a no-fly zone on the borders of syria or a portion of syria to let refugees have some safety?

I think it is insanity.

 

[Fronk]

What is your take on the fact that the US might create a no-fly zone on the borders of syria or a portion of syria to let refugees have some safety?

I think it is insanity.

A no-fly zone means bombing Syrian military installations all over the country. Just like what happened in Libya and the Balkans. It will be a clear escalation of the conflict.
It will also be done without the consent of the UNSC. Such a blatant disregard of international law will have serious diplomatic consequenses. I think a no-fly zone is impossible. Some sort of surgical ballistic/cruise missile attack might happen.
For the US to have any leverage the threat of force has to be on the table.

 

[Fronk]

1.- He is not just a general, he is the highest ranking military officer in the USA, he knows he cant secure a no-fly zone without taking on the Russians due to the presence of SAM batteries like the S-400.

2.- Yes, there is one option which has been in place for over half a century, which is to avoid each other.

3.- Yes, the jihadists decided to not be jihadists anymore, they just want to topple Assad and then return to a life of peaceful islamic existence doing charity.

4.- Kurds as opposed to ISIS have their own national identity and that goes beyond the scope of this war.

 

[Rod1]

What is your take on the fact that the US might create a no-fly zone on the borders of syria or a portion of syria to let refugees have some safety?

I think it is insanity.

Well the US can create a no-fly zone if they get there before the Russians.

That means putting US troops on the ground, the Russians are not stupid enough to risk bombing US troops.

 

[whougonnacall]

1.- He is not just a general, he is the highest ranking military officer in the USA, he knows he cant secure a no-fly zone without taking on the Russians due to the presence of SAM batteries like the S-400.

2.- Yes, there is one option which has been in place for over half a century, which is to avoid each other.

3.- Yes, the jihadists decided to not be jihadists anymore, they just want to topple Assad and then return to a life of peaceful islamic existence doing charity.

4.- Kurds as opposed to ISIS have their own national identity and that goes beyond the scope of this war.

1) doesnt mean hes correct on politics
Military wise those sams are only useful if russia is willing to shoot down a u.s aircraft (assuming they can even detect f22s) and start a war they cant win over a conflict they are looking a graceful way out of before their economy tanks.

2)or back down ....which they would

3)wide brush there your talking a lot of different people ,the vast majority having 0 plans for after assad falls

4) so you are sayimg u consider isis and rebels all the same faction?

 

[Rod1]

1) doesnt mean hes correct on politics
Military wise those sams are only useful if russia is willing to shoot down a u.s aircraft (assuming they can even detect f22s) and start a war they cant win over a conflict they are looking a graceful way out of before their economy tanks.

2)or back down ....which they would

3)wide brush there your talking a lot of different people ,the vast majority having 0 plans for after assad falls

4) so you are sayimg u consider isis and rebels all the same faction?

1) A no-fly zone is a military matter.

2) Like they did in Georgia and Ukraine?

3) Of course, and since they dont have plans, the US wont back them all the way through a confrontation with Russia.

You claim that the US must get involved because of the humanitarian cost, yet you are accepting that toppling Assad wont stop the fighting.

4) No, i dont consider them the same faction. But they are part of the uprising. You are making as simple as either Assad or the rebels, but the rebels are not a single group, a victory of Assad means the fighting is over, a victory for the rebels just means one man leaves the Royal Rumble ring, and the others will keep fighting.

5) Hillary is not an sunni arab supremacist like you, she already gets a shitload of flak because if Libya which is still in turmoil, she needs to profit from a Syrian opposition victory, and i certainly dont see what she can gain from it politically at all.

 

[whougonnacall]

1) A no-fly zone is a military matter.

2) Like they did in Georgia and Ukraine?

3) Of course, and since they dont have plans, the US wont back them all the way through a confrontation with Russia.

You claim that the US must get involved because of the humanitarian cost, yet you are accepting that toppling Assad wont stop the fighting.

4) No, i dont consider them the same faction. But they are part of the uprising. You are making as simple as either Assad or the rebels, but the rebels are not a single group, a victory of Assad means the fighting is over, a victory for the rebels just means one man leaves the Royal Rumble ring, and the others will keep fighting.

5) Hillary is not an sunni arab supremacist like you, she already gets a shitload of flak because if Libya which is still in turmoil, she needs to profit from a Syrian opposition victory, and i certainly dont see what she can gain from it politically at all.

1)russsian choosing to respond is political

2)yes different scenarios ...the names give it away

3)its required for it to stop eventualy though

4) but an assad victory isnt a possibility anymore as every historical foriegn occupation has shown

5)nor is she a vodka soaked russian like you so she knows this shit show has to come to an end..and that does mean actual consequences for the regime axis

 

[Rod1]

1)russsian choosing to respond is political

2)yes different scenarios ...the names give it away

3)its required for it to stop eventualy though

4) but an assad victory isnt a possibility anymore as every historical foriegn occupation has shown

5)nor is she a vodka soaked russian like you so she knows this shit show has to come to an end..and that does mean actual consequences for the regime axis

1) Respond to what? US planes bombing SAMs in Syria?

2) Only in your mind they are different scenarios, Georgia and Ukraine are far more important to the west than jihadistan. Of course a crazy arab like yourself you think these were just poor eastern europeans being bombed so in your mind its not importan, while jihadistan is at the heart of the arab world so in your mind is like the most important war of the last 50 years.

But in reality nobody gives a fuck about a bunch of goatfuckers, not Hillary, and not the general public.

Only a bunch of arab dellusional idiots living in the west think its a relevant conflict.

4) So now you quote history? yes, it may not be a possibility, but Iran and Russia are pretty involved and the US would rather not enter in conflict with Iran or Russia over a shitshow that is Syria. Specially not, just to give it to a bunch of different warring tribal factions and jihadists to duke it out.

5) Putin already committed enough in Syria to simply pull out and save face in the eyes of his public. So for US politicians escalation of involvement would be a political loss, for Putin de-escalation is a political loss.

So Putin will turn Syria to ashes to save face and to keep their mediterranean base, while the US general public support for intervention in Syria just continues to wane.

Meanwhile in America the support for the rebels is at an all time low.

6) Agian, you are greatly overestimating the importance of Syria to the American establishment.

 

[carlos cadona]

The Iraqi's are increasingly anti Turkey after Erdogan suggested only letting Sunni's back into Mosul after ISIS is defeated. Iraqi Parliament voted to kick Turkish troops out of the country(more of a political move considering they aren't gonna use force against them) and Hashd released a statement telling them to fuck off and that they will fight to keep religious minorities in Mosul.

 

[whougonnacall]

1) Respond to what? US planes bombing SAMs in Syria?

2) Only in your mind they are different scenarios, Georgia and Ukraine are far more important to the west than jihadistan. Of course a crazy arab like yourself you think these were just poor eastern europeans being bombed so in your mind its not importan, while jihadistan is at the heart of the arab world so in your mind is like the most important war of the last 50 years.

But in reality nobody gives a fuck about a bunch of goatfuckers, not Hillary, and not the general public.

Only a bunch of arab dellusional idiots living in the west think its a relevant conflict.

4) So now you quote history? yes, it may not be a possibility, but Iran and Russia are pretty involved and the US would rather not enter in conflict with Iran or Russia over a shitshow that is Syria. Specially not, just to give it to a bunch of different warring tribal factions and jihadists to duke it out.

5) Putin already committed enough in Syria to simply pull out and save face in the eyes of his public. So for US politicians escalation of involvement would be a political loss, for Putin de-escalation is a political loss.

So Putin will turn Syria to ashes to save face and to keep their mediterranean base, while the US general public support for intervention in Syria just continues to wane.

Meanwhile in America the support for the rebels is at an all time low.

6) Agian, you are greatly overestimating the importance of Syria to the American establishment.

1) we wouldnt have to bomb those sam sites itd be a russian dec to have them lock on and/or fire forcing u.s planes to respond in self defence with their anti aa weaponry.

2) but they are different and id expect to see a tougher line taken in the ukraine too anyway.

4) well we are already involved with the eyes of the world watching ,
We unlike them are actualy gearing towards some sort of resolution so isis can be killed off for good and the non stop war crimes show the regime axis is putting on is stopped or at least toned wayy down.

5) you forget your shithole homecountry of russia isnt really a democracy anymore so putin doesnt have to save face in the slightest literaly everything he does will be presented in the best spin in state propaganda like rt today ...not that hed have any blowback anyway hes virtualy tsar of russia for life now.

Like most actions hel put spin on them

6) again you overestimate its importance to russia ...feels like were going round in cricles now


Edit seems a few mainstream press are now teporting obama may take stronger action himself 'kinetic options ' like airstrikes on regime being reconsidered and given more weight.

 

[whougonnacall]

So news
-russia sending another aa system to syria while white house reconsiders airstrikes among other options

-4k rebel faction in northern homs/hama regiom reactivates and joins push for hama taking more towns and villages...seems the overall strategy is forcing the regime to choose to ease off aleppo soon or lose hama city
Interesting inside the city reports of 3 regime officers arrested for 'disloyalty'
And isis set off 3 bombs ...bribed by isis?

-inside aleppo regime offensive seemed to falter with heavy casulties (reports of dead iranain officers) til ypg attacked rebels allowing tighter siege, kurds hold tiny pocket within city and seemingly switch sides depending where the wind blows

-fsa/turk force comtinues to make gains 1k turk elite troops reportedly on way to prep for up comming al bab offensive

-reports of non stop constructionnwork in mosul building trenches and concrete barriers ....isis hadnt prepped the city before as they said there would never be any need lol

 

[Rod1]

1) we wouldnt have to bomb those sam sites itd be a russian dec to have them lock on and/or fire forcing u.s planes to respond in self defence with their anti aa weaponry.

2) but they are different and id expect to see a tougher line taken in the ukraine too anyway.

4) well we are already involved with the eyes of the world watching ,
We unlike them are actualy gearing towards some sort of resolution so isis can be killed off for good and the non stop war crimes show the regime axis is putting on is stopped or at least toned wayy down.

5) you forget your shithole homecountry of russia isnt really a democracy anymore so putin doesnt have to save face in the slightest literaly everything he does will be presented in the best spin in state propaganda like rt today ...not that hed have any blowback anyway hes virtualy tsar of russia for life now.

Like most actions hel put spin on them

6) again you overestimate its importance to russia ...feels like were going round in cricles now


Edit seems a few mainstream press are now teporting obama may take stronger action himself 'kinetic options ' like airstrikes on regime being reconsidered and given more weight.

1) Actually you do. If you want to keep a legitimate no-fly zone, you need a legitimate threat of force.

2) Of course, Ukraine is far more important, because it is an actual democratic nation, with a functional government that was invaded by Russia. So there was everything to win by stopping Russia, yet they didnt.

3) The whole world is watching, thats the problem, so the whole world knows already that toppling Assad wont stop the fighting.

4) The US is nowhere as involved as the Russians. It has a goal to stop ISIS because ISIS spilled over to Iraq.

5) Its not democratic, but it doesnt has censored internet like China, Putin image would be destroyed if he pulled out of Syria with nothing to show.

6) Im not overstimating Russia, if Russia invaded the baltic countries the US would act immediatly, but Syria aint a baltic country, Syria a shithole in the middle of nowhere with no realistic domestic solution to end the fighting.

 

[whougonnacall]

1) Actually you do. If you want to keep a legitimate no-fly zone, you need a legitimate threat of force.

2) Of course, Ukraine is far more important, because it is an actual democratic nation, with a functional government that was invaded by Russia. So there was everything to win by stopping Russia, yet they didnt.

3) The whole world is watching, thats the problem, so the whole world knows already that toppling Assad wont stop the fighting.

4) The US is nowhere as involved as the Russians. It has a goal to stop ISIS because ISIS spilled over to Iraq.

5) Its not democratic, but it doesnt has censored internet like China, Putin image would be destroyed if he pulled out of Syria with nothing to show.

6) Im not overstimating Russia, if Russia invaded the baltic countries the US would act immediatly, but Syria aint a baltic country, Syria a shithole in the middle of nowhere with no realistic domestic solution to end the fighting.

1) and there is one we could supress the much vaunted s-400 etc if needed
But that requires an escalation from russia to lock up the planes (if they can even detect the raptors there that is)
Its brinkmanship....the cold war is back on so wel see it more and more

2)that was due to a policy not any fear or military weakness though...as your home of russia has continuted its rogue nation activity thats being reviewed by the current administration and is unlikely to be carried on by the new one.

3) but it does mean a practical step towards an end

4) but it is involved and cannot ignore the regimes warcrimes and its boosting effect for isis anymore.

5)even if public opinion there mattered or couldnt be swayed by their media......hes already achieved all he really wanted anything extra is a plus
Russias back on the world stage, his military got a display(boosting rus weapon sales worldwide) and he showed tyrants worldwide he has their back..that unlike the u.s hes a solid and unjudgemental ally
He can pull out and gets to look at the inevitable mess he helped make worse and blame the u.s entirely with his normal mix of distortion and outright lies.


Bottom line his economy is tanking, he doesnt want a war he cant with the u.s or a never ending unwinnable quagmire in syria

6) and again that assumes russia will escalate

 

[Squall Leonhart]

So from what I read, Washington considering air strikes is just to gauge the Russian response to this idea....whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy do we have to do this!?

Can't they just pull out

 

[Squall Leonhart]

At least we have this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/kerry-faults-russia-for-prolonging-syria-conflict-1475584062

 

[guassian]

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi reportedly poisoned
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/10/04/isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-reportedly-poisoned.html

God, I hope the POS was poisoned ... would be funny!

 

[Rod1]

1) and there is one we could supress the much vaunted s-400 etc if needed
But that requires an escalation from russia to lock up the planes (if they can even detect the raptors there that is)
Its brinkmanship....the cold war is back on so wel see it more and more

2)that was due to a policy not any fear or military weakness though...as your home of russia has continuted its rogue nation activity thats being reviewed by the current administration and is unlikely to be carried on by the new one.

3) but it does mean a practical step towards an end

4) but it is involved and cannot ignore the regimes warcrimes and its boosting effect for isis anymore.

5)even if public opinion there mattered or couldnt be swayed by their media......hes already achieved all he really wanted anything extra is a plus
Russias back on the world stage, his military got a display(boosting rus weapon sales worldwide) and he showed tyrants worldwide he has their back..that unlike the u.s hes a solid and unjudgemental ally
He can pull out and gets to look at the inevitable mess he helped make worse and blame the u.s entirely with his normal mix of distortion and outright lies.


Bottom line his economy is tanking, he doesnt want a war he cant with the u.s or a never ending unwinnable quagmire in syria

6) and again that assumes russia will escalate

1) What if Russia just ignores the no-fly threat and keeps bombing? shoot down their planes?

2) LOL so the US has a policy of allowing Russia to invade their neighbours? Bush Jr and Obama allowed Russia to invade Ukraine and Georgia when all it takes is as you put it, a phone call to Putin telling them that invasions will mean war?

3) Yes, just like in Libya and Iraq, these went perfectly once their dictators fell.

4) The US is a professional when it comes to ignoring warcrimes, it ignored Saddam warcrimes against Kurds, it ignored the Taliban warcrimes in Afghanistan, it ignored the Contras, the Guatemala warcrimes.

5) How does he shows that he has the back of dictators if he pulls out? how does failing to prevent the regime collapse shows his weapons are any good? and how does he ensures that the naval base lease will be respected? its far easier to drop a shitload of bombs on the rebels.

His economy is tanking but Syria isnt really being quite expensive, he is just dropping old bombs in there and flying old planes that would otherwise be collecting rust back home, im pretty sure that such bombings are also being excellent training for his pilots. And his weapons are all domestic, so its not like he is paying for them in US dollars.

6) See thats the crux of the issue, nobody wants to test the waters with Russia, because they have nukes, you cant tell if the Russians would use a tactical nuke on American bases in the middle east. Thats the issue with nukes, its not like one immediatly assumes that strategic bombs will be flying into cities. The first nuclear targets would be military from the losing side with the expectation that the nuclear warfare will remain tactical.

 

[Squall Leonhart]

1) What if Russia just ignores the no-fly threat and keeps bombing? shoot down their planes?

2) LOL so the US has a policy of allowing Russia to invade their neighbours? Bush Jr and Obama allowed Russia to invade Ukraine and Georgia when all it takes is as you put it, a phone call to Putin telling them that invasions will mean war?

3) Yes, just like in Libya and Iraq, these went perfectly once their dictators fell.

4) The US is a professional when it comes to ignoring warcrimes, it ignored Saddam warcrimes against Kurds, it ignored the Taliban warcrimes in Afghanistan, it ignored the Contras, the Guatemala warcrimes.

5) How does he shows that he has the back of dictators if he pulls out? how does failing to prevent the regime collapse shows his weapons are any good? and how does he ensures that the naval base lease will be respected? its far easier to drop a shitload of bombs on the rebels.

His economy is tanking but Syria isnt really being quite expensive, he is just dropping old bombs in there and flying old planes that would otherwise be collecting rust back home, im pretty sure that such bombings are also being excellent training for his pilots. And his weapons are all domestic, so its not like he is paying for them in US dollars.

6) See thats the crux of the issue, nobody wants to test the waters with Russia, because they have nukes, you cant tell if the Russians would use a tactical nuke on American bases in the middle east. Thats the issue with nukes, its not like one immediatly assumes that strategic bombs will be flying into cities. The first nuclear targets would be military from the losing side with the expectation that the nuclear warfare will remain tactical.

So why does the US now say that bombing the Syrian administration is gaining traction as an idea?

 

[Rod1]

So why does the US now say that bombing the Syrian administration is gaining traction as an idea?

Didnt you posted an article where Kerry is looking for Russia cooperation just recently?