Syria put its jets under Russian protection

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Did you read my second post?
The truth is totally irrelevant.
Decisions will be made based on the official story.
When has truth stood in the way of a good war?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

A NYT link? Really? Are they any more reputable than the Daily Mail?

No.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

no as a matter of fact it is not a New York Times link. Perhaps you should click it and find out.

Syria is a done deal already. I suspect if the Kurdish referendum for independence can go forward in Iraq, Rojava will follow suit, and the two may merge after about a decade. The Saudi pipeline may be foiled, but NATO will get its air bases in North Syria.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Ok, its a story about the NYT, quoting the NYT.

It doesn't' matter much who quotes the NYT or if they speak directly. Their information is suspect, regardless of what side it is on or whom they are supporting. They have shown themselves to be blatantly willing to prevaricate.

a reply to: Vroomfondel
Listen, the NYT article is mentioned as a sad state of affairs in which it has become unorthodox to be skeptical of the official story. The rest of it goes into dissecting the allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria, and ripping the official story to shreds.
Based on your replies, I am confident you do not agree with the official story, and neither odes that article.

I was trying to move beyond that by discussing what is left of America's interests inside Syria. Lets move back in that direction together, shall we?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I understand that. My point is that the NYT is often the source of the skepticism. They are playing both sides of the fence.

Actually, I do believe the official story more than I disbelieve. But all I have to go on is second hand information from various news sources, most of which are purveyors of the finest quality bull# on earth.

I am not as concerned about America's interests in Syria as I am about Russia's roll in all of this, which seems to be taking a position more center stage. That is my concern and the topic of this thread. Not that your point does not deserve discussion, but why Russia is willing to enter in to an agreement with Syria like this knowing the US is determined to continue makes me very very skeptical and more than a bit concerned.

a reply to: Vroomfondel
Well, somebody has to step up to the bully when they go destroying society after society for decades all over the world right?? Did it ever occur that citizens that were part of the "evil empires" of the past, did not perceive that their empire was doing bad?
Russia has already established it is fully intent on protecting its Mediterranean port access and air bases within this land. Keeping the official government from falling is in its best interests. Lets imagine, like we do quite often around here, that outside interests were tearing apart Djibouti and compromising not only America's only permanent base in Africa, but also threatening our access to the Red Sea, and subsequently limit the availability of the Suez canal. That channel is only about 20 miles wide, and a hostile government setup afterwards could easily restrict our access.

This is pretty close comparison of the vital interests from both perspectives. If this perspective is looked at honestly, it should be more clear as to why Russia is willing to challenge outside forces from threatening their Syrian interests.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

There is and there is evidence assad used it in the past. Willingly ignoring information does not invalidate the info.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Sorry, but I do not see the US the same way you do. Of course we have done things we should not have done. Everyone has. But to say we have been destroying society after society for decades is a bit harsh. Or at least one sided. Could we not say the same about Russia? Or the middle east in general? There is more than one bully on the block...

Russia fully intends to protect its interests. But does that make what they intend to do right? Who can say with any confidence what the Russian end game is? Without knowing that, defending what they are doing is careless at the very least. You have a very firm vision of what is happening there. But there are more than one potential conclusion and quite a number of ways to arrive there.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Really? What you could what is left of Iraq, Syria, and Libya if not destroyed societies?? I put Ukraine on both parties, Russia and NATO, sure. But how many other nations has had their entire stability, institutions, and general security eliminated from Russian actions?? Ok lets be be fair and narrow the timeline. Lets start from the fall of the Soviet Union since the cold war saw both sides backing some rather hideous people and crimes against humanity, or perhaps the following decade, so we can skip the Balkans??

Somalia even had a cursory chance at stability in 2006 before Christian invaders from Ethiopia with the assistance of the AU (both receiving generous military aide from Pentagon and NATO states at the time) destroyed what little stability and peace the locals had managed to restore while their pleas for cooperation and assistance went completely ignore by the international community? The complicity in Yemen has already turned into direct action and will escalate soon as well. It is almost comical seeing the wealthiest states in the Middle East having their asses handed to them by the armed forces and rebels of the poorest nation in the Middle East. Especially considering the Yemenis attack military targets and bases pretty much exclusively, while the latter has interrupted food distribution, infrastructure, and bombed civilian targets rather consistently which is now resulting in nearly half the population being subjected to famine and malnutrition. I find it hard to defend any of that.

I do not see the Russian state taking these same actions on such a global scale. What I see, is simply Russia seeking to protect its national interests in Syria, the way I feel America would do the same under similar circumstances in Djibouti if it were undergoing a similar problem. Does that make Russia bad, or evil??

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: worldstarcountry


I am not as concerned about America's interests in Syria as I am about Russia's roll in all of this, which seems to be taking a position more center stage. That is my concern and the topic of this thread. Not that your point does not deserve discussion, but why Russia is willing to enter in to an agreement with Syria like this knowing the US is determined to continue makes me very very skeptical and more than a bit concerned.

My two cents, take them for whatever you think they're worth:
Russia is not backing down on this mainly because we have Russia surrounded by US and NATO bases. Russia has a very long history of being invaded, so they are kinda right to be paranoid. They know if there's regime change in Syria there will be more US bases. Also, Putin remembers the Cold War, he was KGB. he probably has no reason to think we will suddenly play nice with Russia. He remembers when they were protected by our collective fears of World War 3. Washington isn't acting at all like it's afraid of WW3 and that should be worrisome for all of us. Our politicians are complacent and arrogant, because we beat the Soviet Union, we can win anything. Well, Russia's still sitting on a pile of Soviet nukes that are still pointed at us, but Washington shows no indication of remembering that.

Also, both countries are jockeying for control in the Middle East, the only reason I can think of is oil. We are an importer and they are an exporter, so we have opposing views on what the price of oil should be. They want a high price, we want a low price. We both want control over where the oil goes. This will not end well, unless US military is playing a long game, and appearing to not know all this is part of their plan.

Are you sure trump aint that stupid. It seems the usa lost all sense of reality and morality lately. To me it look like desperate acts by desperate goverment

a reply to: Xcathdra
Syria got rid of its chemical weapons in 2012 bud. Wake up and smell the wood burning.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No, there is no evidence Assad used chemical weapons in the past. Witnesses on the ground in Syria said that it was the rebels that did it in 2013. You really have nothing here pal. Like you said, willingly ignoring information does not invalidate the info. You're welcome.

a reply to: patrononice


You have been listening to Susan Rice's lies again. According to US news sites, Syria still has tons of chemical weapons.

time.com...

nypost.com...

a reply to: patrononice
Here is a timeline of Syrian Chemical Weapons Activity:

www.armscontrol.org...

Assad has asked the UN to step in to look at the issue, while France says it will prove in a few days that Assad did use chemical weapons. Assad can hide things from the UN, but maybe France already knows what he is hiding.

The US will just find other targets to hit if they are going to show of to the world how mighty they are.

The US wont start shooting missiles at bases used by Russia.

PS. WHat happened to the 36 US missiles that didnt Reach their targets. Did Russia shoot them Down?
Only 23 missiles reached their targets.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ahh, pushing the anti Russia narrative as always regardless if it is based on fact or not. Why would Assad who has the eyes of the world on him use WMDs? Lots of counter evidence to be found if one cares to look, further still if one cares to look this story has been debunked as no base in Syria is large enough to house the over 450 aircraft the Syrians have.

I'm a firm believer in Karma.

originally posted by: spy66
The US will just find other targets to hit if they are going to show of to the world how mighty they are.

The US wont start shooting missiles at bases used by Russia.

PS. WHat happened to the 36 US missiles that didnt Reach their targets. Did Russia shoot them Down?
Only 23 missiles reached their targets.

Yes, they have defenses in place. The ones that didn't hit were destroyed. Russia is deploying stronger air defense.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I agree, it's not decades. It's the last 16 years since 9/11. NATO and especially the US have done more harm than good. I love you guys but the destabilization of the Middle East has been horrific. The last two POTUS' should be in jail along with Tony Blair and half of the IC on both sides of the pond.

People are criticizing Trump but at least he's targeting actual military strongholds.

Targeting civilian territory was starting to become normal. WTF kind of world is that? Did someone set fire to the Geneva convention agreement and I missed it?