• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia adding 2nd airbase in Syria, pursuing 'expansion' in military campaign

Re: A second Russian airbase in Syria

Montecresto said:
But Saudi Arabia's part of the problem, they support the Islamic State and oppose the Assad government, as does the Western ally's. :shrug:
Click to expand...

This is why the west needs to place sanctions on Saudi Arabia, they are the originator of radical islam.
 
Re: A second Russian airbase in Syria

JANFU said:
More countries aside from the US had their hands in this.
Assad could have been toasted years ago- Saudi and Turkey had the military to do it.
But they wanted someone else to do the scut work.
Click to expand...

Come on dude, several times the US sought the necessary UN authorization to do so and failed. Obama asked congress for a specific AUMF for Syria to do it and failed. 70% of Americans were against it. The reason why it's not been done is Russia and China and primarily Russia. Sorry to be repeating myself, but Russia is not going to let Syria fall to Western influence, it's just not going to happen. This is about national security for them.
 
Re: A second Russian airbase in Syria

Shadowless said:
This is why the west needs to place sanctions on Saudi Arabia, they are the originator of radical islam.
Click to expand...

Yep. But they are our ally, and the Bush/Saudi relationship goes back decades.
 
Re: A second Russian airbase in Syria

Montecresto said:
Come on dude, several times the US sought the necessary UN authorization to do so and failed. Obama asked congress for a specific AUMF for Syria to do it and failed. 70% of Americans were against it. The reason why it's not been done is Russia and China and primarily Russia. Sorry to be repeating myself, but Russia is not going to let Syria fall to Western influence, it's just not going to happen. This is about national security for them.
Click to expand...
My point was, if Turkey and Saudi wanted it done, they could have done it and ignored the UN.
 
Re: A second Russian airbase in Syria

Shadowless said:
It's a shame Saudi Arabia which has the largest arab military in the world didn't step in since it's their neighborhood. Its not Obama's problem, really.
Click to expand...

Likely Saudi is involved in the scam. Bush family do a lot of business with Saudis.

It's almost like out of a comic book, with mercenary armies scattered around the globe, drone aircraft overhead. Cities crumbling and government accounting bankrupt. Depressing.
 
JANFU said:
The Russians regardless of who is in power want guarantees for their port access.
If you look to the beginnings of the Syrian civil war, Assad acted with mass violence. Just as his father did with Hama in 82.
The lesson learned then was stamp out dissent with all means possible and available.
Assad followed in his father footsteps.
That was the precursor to he Syrian civil war.

The west had a choice, stand by as he committed mass slaughter of civilians or intervene
As to Libya, the west left when it should have stayed. Using Arab troops. They are not beholden to the rules of war as the west is.
A negotiated end to Gadafi rule could have been negotiated.
The biggest issue in Libya is tribal conflicts.
Always has been and was silenced under his rule.
And at one time or another they were bound to explode.
Click to expand...

Gaddafi handled Libya just fine since he was 27.

Assad responded to rowdy protests around his country for two months with police, water cannons and rubber bullets, not unlike any other nation on earth would do. It wasn't until the police couldn't any longer handle it that the military was brought out. Once again, the same thing any other government would do. Here's where things get different. If the same thing happened in the US and escalated to the point that people got shot, that would probably put an end to it. Things might go differently if foreign interests sent in armed extremists to attack police or military with an interest in toppling the US government. In Syria, from day one, there was country's like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey eyeing an opportunity to send in extremists to coopt the events to pursue a long held ambition of regime change. Eventually the US and others did as well.
 
Re: A second Russian airbase in Syria

JANFU said:
My point was, if Turkey and Saudi wanted it done, they could have done it and ignored the UN.
Click to expand...

And my point again is, no they couldn't. It seems to me only a couple of people on this board understand that toppling Syria is NOT something Putin is going to let happen, period. Ok, he may in the end get his ass kicked trying to prevent it, but it's going to cost dear.
 
Re: A second Russian airbase in Syria

Montecresto said:
And my point again is, no they couldn't. It seems to me only a couple of people on this board understand that toppling Syria is NOT something Putin is going to let happen, period. Ok, he may in the end get his ass kicked trying to prevent it, but it's going to cost dear.
Click to expand...

Turkey could have been across the border and locked up the ports within days.
 
Re: A second Russian airbase in Syria

JANFU said:
Turkey could have been across the border and locked up the ports within days.
Click to expand...

Turkey is a NATO country. Apparently somebody wants to see war between Russia and NATO. I think Putin has been clear, he isn't going to allow the West to push him out of either of his two WWP's.
 
starcitizen said:
Yes the Syrian people are the greater threat to the butcher Assads illigal regime that's why the Russian pigs and Baathist fascists are slauyghtering them in mass in order to bolster both Assad and the ISIS murderers whom the Russians and Assad created.
Click to expand...

So ISIS was created by Russia and Assad...

I can't be the only one chuckling away at this :lol:
 
Re: A second Russian airbase in Syria

Montecresto said:
Turkey is a NATO country. Apparently somebody wants to see war between Russia and NATO. I think Putin has been clear, he isn't going to allow the West to push him out of either of his two WWP's.
Click to expand...
Planned properly he would not have had time to respond.
 
Montecresto said:
Russia planting their feet solidly

Russia adding 2nd airbase in Syria, pursuing 'expansion' in military campaign

Russia adding 2nd airbase in Syria, pursuing 'expansion' in military campaign | Fox News
Click to expand...

Good, we can wash our hands of Syria and their internal problems and focus on helping Iraq drive ISIS back into Syria

no sense, and no benefit, in escalating with Russia over Syria.... we weren't smart enough to deal with Syria in the first place, so let Putin take the helm and get it handled however he wants to handle it.... as long as ISIS is defeated ,I'm good.

of course, we'll have one more tyrannical dictator still breathing, but meh.. lots of people support tyrannical dictators, I'm just a little guy in a little minority that hates such "humans".. i'm outvoted.
 
Montecresto said:
And my point again is, no they couldn't. It seems to me only a couple of people on this board understand that toppling Syria is NOT something Putin is going to let happen, period. Ok, he may in the end get his ass kicked trying to prevent it, but it's going to cost dear.
Click to expand...

I could be misinterpreting you but, Putin has clearly stated that his compromise is with Syria, not Assad. He wants wants Assad to be part of the negotiations for a new Syria, but not necessarily part of the solution.

However, it is true that no one will dare to try and simply "topple" Assad. Russian presence prevents it by itself.

You see, it seems to me like everyone is trying to stretch the rope as much as they can, because all parts know that no one is willing to start a WW3. Putin is the architect of a new Syria, and nothing can be done about it because of this exact reason - no one will use force to stop him.

On the same note, Turkey would never down a Russian plane if they knew that there would be a stern military answer. They basically bullied Rusia, knowing they couldn't do anything about it. They've got the "air space violation" excuse ready as well.

More "mistakes" are likely to happen in the next months, but no one will engage on an actual all out war.
 
Thrilla said:
Good, we can wash our hands of Syria and their internal problems and focus on helping Iraq drive ISIS back into Syria

no sense, and no benefit, in escalating with Russia over Syria.... we weren't smart enough to deal with Syria in the first place, so let Putin take the helm and get it handled however he wants to handle it.... as long as ISIS is defeated ,I'm good.

of course, we'll have one more tyrannical dictator still breathing, but meh.. lots of people support tyrannical dictators, I'm just a little guy in a little minority that hates such "humans".. i'm outvoted.
Click to expand...

I agree. As to dictators, they've actually served that region better than anything we've offered up. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad all protected the Christian communities within their borders, and they all were the best containment of Islamic extremists.
 
Montecresto said:
I agree. As to dictators, they've actually served that region better than anything we've offered up. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad all protected the Christian communities within their borders, and they all were the best containment of Islamic extremists.
Click to expand...

me and you will not agree on tyrannical dictators, so just drop it.
 
Arkantos said:
I could be misinterpreting you but, Putin has clearly stated that his compromise is with Syria, not Assad. He wants wants Assad to be part of the negotiations for a new Syria, but not necessarily part of the solution.

However, it is true that no one will dare to try and simply "topple" Assad. Russian presence prevents it by itself.

You see, it seems to me like everyone is trying to stretch the rope as much as they can, because all parts know that no one is willing to start a WW3. Putin is the architect of a new Syria, and nothing can be done about it because of this exact reason - no one will use force to stop him.

On the same note, Turkey would never down a Russian plane if they knew that there would be a stern military answer. They basically bullied Rusia, knowing they couldn't do anything about it. They've got the "air space violation" excuse ready as well.

More "mistakes" are likely to happen in the next months, but no one will engage on an actual all out war.
Click to expand...

Well you could be right. I hope your right. I see you're brand new (welcome in here) so you wouldn't know, but I've pointed out all along that Putin's interests lay more with Syria then Assad. This is about strategic national security interests for Putin just as Crimea was. So if Assad is replaced, whoever replaces him will answer to Russia's interests or he won't be in.
 
Thrilla said:
me and you will not agree on tyrannical dictators, so just drop it.
Click to expand...

You addressed me and had your say, and I will have mine. If you want it dropped you can stop engaging.
 
Montecresto said:
Well you could be right. I hope your right. I see you're brand new (welcome in here) so you wouldn't know, but I've pointed out all along that Putin's interests lay more with Syria then Assad. This is about strategic national security interests for Putin just as Crimea was. So if Assad is replaced, whoever replaces him will answer to Russia's interests or he won't be in.
Click to expand...

Cheers.

Exactly. There are no heroes here. All parts are acting out of secondary interests.

It will be interesting to see how it all develops, once (if) ISIS get their asses handled to them. Assad himself said he was willing to leave if his people wanted him to, but we don't know to what points he means this. Furthermore, both him and Putin could be bluffing...

On the other side, it seems to me that the gulf states and the US have wasted too many millions in the proxy war, to simply let go. But then again, what do they really want from Syria? If Assad ends up not being part of the solution, will the US be satisfied? Or do they want to deny Russia their port? :shrug:
 
Arkantos said:
Cheers.

Exactly. There are no heroes here. All parts are acting out of secondary interests.

It will be interesting to see how it all develops, once (if) ISIS get their asses handled to them. Assad himself said he was willing to leave if his people wanted him to, but we don't know to what points he means this. Furthermore, both him and Putin could be bluffing...

On the other side, it seems to me that the gulf states and the US have wasted too many millions in the proxy war, to simply let go. But then again, what do they really want from Syria? If Assad ends up not being part of the solution, will the US be satisfied? Or do they want to deny Russia their port? :shrug:
Click to expand...

The US has recently conceded that Assad will stay, and realizes now that it's better than the alternative. No there's no heroes, but the nation involved with the most credibility in Syria is Russia. They have national security interest, and they have been invited in to help. All others are belligerents. Considering both of Russia's WWP's have been threatened recently, it seems to be by design.
 
Montecresto said:
The US has recently conceded that Assad will stay, and realizes now that it's better than the alternative. No there's no heroes, but the nation involved with the most credibility in Syria is Russia. They have national security interest, and they have been invited in to help. All others are belligerents. Considering both of Russia's WWP's have been threatened recently, it seems to be by design.
Click to expand...

When did the US say Assad can stay. I was just reading some statements today that said that the US position is that Assad can not be part of the end state in Syria.
 
Montecresto said:
The US has recently conceded that Assad will stay, and realizes now that it's better than the alternative. No there's no heroes, but the nation involved with the most credibility in Syria is Russia. They have national security interest, and they have been invited in to help. All others are belligerents. Considering both of Russia's WWP's have been threatened recently, it seems to be by design.
Click to expand...

Citation?
 
Arkantos said:
Cheers.

Exactly. There are no heroes here. All parts are acting out of secondary interests.

It will be interesting to see how it all develops, once (if) ISIS get their asses handled to them. Assad himself said he was willing to leave if his people wanted him to, but we don't know to what points he means this. Furthermore, both him and Putin could be bluffing...

On the other side, it seems to me that the gulf states and the US have wasted too many millions in the proxy war, to simply let go. But then again, what do they really want from Syria? If Assad ends up not being part of the solution, will the US be satisfied? Or do they want to deny Russia their port? :shrug:
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/w...ns-demonstrates-shift-in-priorities.html?_r=0

BEIRUT, Lebanon — American support for a pair of diplomatic initiatives in Syria underscores the shifting views of how to end the civil war there and the West’s quiet retreat from its demand that the country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, step down immediately.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom