Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

No Fly Zone

bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 11:49:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.

With Obama, the Russians would break a no-fly zone. With Clinton, it's unlikely that they would because they know that she would reign hell down upon them if they did.

The real question is how interested in war with the United States the Russians are. Putin needs a viable external threat to blame for the miserable state of failure he has caused to descend on Russia's economy.

A war would consolidate his power, but it's not a viable long term strategy unless his only goal is to use it as a pretext to kill off his political opponents. That said, Putin has never really needed a pretext to kill off his political opponents... unless he's planning something major or he's dealing with internal threats that I am not aware of.

But really, I have no idea whether Putin thinks a war is in his best interest or not. I know it's not, but he doesn't act rationally for the long term. He's more of a "move from one crisis to the next" kind of guy, rather than a chessmaster.
Tsar of DDO
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 11:50:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.

Interfering in Syria is already a disaster. Staying a no fly zone makes a bad policy a calamitous one
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 11:57:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 11:49:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.

With Obama, the Russians would break a no-fly zone. With Clinton, it's unlikely that they would because they know that she would reign hell down upon them if they did.

The real question is how interested in war with the United States the Russians are. Putin needs a viable external threat to blame for the miserable state of failure he has caused to descend on Russia's economy.

A war would consolidate his power, but it's not a viable long term strategy unless his only goal is to use it as a pretext to kill off his political opponents. That said, Putin has never really needed a pretext to kill off his political opponents... unless he's planning something major or he's dealing with internal threats that I am not aware of.

But really, I have no idea whether Putin thinks a war is in his best interest or not. I know it's not, but he doesn't act rationally for the long term. He's more of a "move from one crisis to the next" kind of guy, rather than a chessmaster.

He's already consolidated his political power considerably well, as he has been able to craft an image of him against the West. As nations get poorer as a result of other nations, it is only rational for their people to grow a sense of wariness against that specific nation that wronged them.

With Obama, yes, they would most likely have violated the No Fly Zone, mainly because the likelihood of Obama declaring war on Russia is very low. However, the chances of sanctions being imposed is quite high.

As for the current state of Russia, they are already considerably marginalized in the world economy and their monetary system has crashed to the point of no return. Their only advantage is the near monopoly they have on natural gas going into the EU, which can change drastically if they are in a conflict with the United States. On top of that, they will not give up their foothold in the Middle East, primarily Syria, as a result of their desire to maintain this monopoly.

I really doubt that either of the two leaders, should Clinton get elected, will try to provoke each other to the point of war, no do I think that Congress would vote to declare war. It will most likely have to be an American assault rather than a Russian one, as the alliances that Russia has are far weaker than NATO.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 12:02:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 11:50:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.

Interfering in Syria is already a disaster. Staying a no fly zone makes a bad policy a calamitous one

Agreed
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 12:19:29 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 11:57:12 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
He's already consolidated his political power considerably well, as he has been able to craft an image of him against the West.

That's a part of the picture, and to the extent you're describing that part, you're right. There are a lot of people in Russia who are very fond of the paternalistic strong man image he's garnered. His poll numbers tend to reflect that, even when the polls aren't rigged by the Kremlin (as they often are).

The part of the picture you're missing are about the 30-35% of the population who would like to see Putin and his brigade of cronies killed in a bloody revolution. Those people are the ones Putin is deeply afraid of, and ever vigilant to hold at bay. It's why he's so hard on political dissidents, and why he goes out of his way to mercilessly kill or imprison anyone who opposes him in ways other than that he personally approves of.

There is some approved political opposition to Putin, but it's little more than political gamesmanship as the people who oppose him are literally his friends that he has run against him for the purpose of maintaining the pretense that Russia is a functional democracy. Anything could be further from the truth. For further discussion of this issue, see the last chapters of The New Tsar, a book discussing Putin's ascendency to power and maintenance of the same.

As nations get poorer as a result of other nations, it is only rational for their people to grow a sense of wariness against that specific nation that wronged them.

Well, that's not correct. What's "natural" is for people to hate external threats, and to orient themselves on a nationalistic basis when they perceive that they are confronted with such a threat. The irony of course is that this only works among older Russians. Russian Millennials almost universally hate Putin and blame him for the desolate state of the Russian economy.

They believe that improved relations with the US is the only way to pave the way for Russia to remain a first world country in the 21st century, because they understand the United State's incredible power and willingness to use it's economic might to punish countries that defy it. They also resent the stupid nationalistic impulses that Putin has garnered, stupid laws he's implemented, and toxic culture he's created among russian nationalists.

However, the chances of sanctions being imposed is quite high.

Sanctions are a mixed bucket of impacts, and it depends on the species of sanctions imposed. It is true that sanctions can change state policy but the sanctions have to be severe enough to create popular outrage at their government. That has almost happened in Russia, but the problem with sanctioning Russia is two fold: first, it feeds into Putin's "The US is to blame for all of your problems!" narrative; and second, there is a limit to which the United States can sanction Russia without harming Western Europe. Both of those things basically make it so that we're sanctioning them with one hand tied behind our back.

As for the current state of Russia, they are already considerably marginalized in the world economy and their monetary system has crashed to the point of no return. Their only advantage is the near monopoly they have on natural gas going into the EU, which can change drastically if they are in a conflict with the United States.

Russia has a lot of economic advantages, and the natural gas one is huge with respect to Western Europe. Russian banking and construction also hugely connect with Western Europe, too. Russia also exports a lot of agricultural products to Western Europe, and raw materials like iron ore. All of those things place a limit on the extent to which the United States can economically retaliate on Russia.

On top of that, they will not give up their foothold in the Middle East, primarily Syria, as a result of their desire to maintain this monopoly.

Russia's sale of natural gas to Europe has little to do with its presence in the middle east beyond that economic connection restraining other countries (like the United States) from using military force or severe, Iran-style economic sanctions in retaliation for Russian military activities.

However, Syria is massively important to Russia for three--existential--reasons: (1) Syria is a massive historical ally with Russia whose economic and political connections trace generations; (2) Syria is one of the few places where Russia maintains external warm-water ports; and (3) all other Russian-client states are looking at Syria to assess the worth of an economic/diplomatic relationship with Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Basically, it's like this... if Syria goes, then the dominoes are going to fall around the world for Russia. That's why the United States initially wanted the Assad government to go, was because of the blow it would have on Russia's presence, internationally and diplomatically. It would also be a really good reason for other countries to reconsider their alliances with Russia, and create what Reagan would have called "a time for choosing" between the United States and the decaying post-soviet republic.

I really doubt that either of the two leaders, should Clinton get elected, will try to provoke each other to the point of war, no do I think that Congress would vote to declare war. It will most likely have to be an American assault rather than a Russian one, as the alliances that Russia has are far weaker than NATO.

Don't be so sure. For Putin, the stakes are higher than they are for the United States. More and sustained losses for Putin means that he needs a steroid shot of foreign policy victories. He might just manage to stumble into a war.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 12:58:59 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.

Yes it would be a disaster. Well, perhaps not a disaster, but yet another foolish misadventure in a part of the world we simply don't belong in.

The interactions with Russian aircraft alone is a sure opportunity for unintended consequences.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 11:54:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:58:59 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.

Yes it would be a disaster. Well, perhaps not a disaster, but yet another foolish misadventure in a part of the world we simply don't belong in.

The interactions with Russian aircraft alone is a sure opportunity for unintended consequences.

Not trying to attack Obama or what Hillary is proposing (no need to make a Trump commentary. He is as viable as Truman at this point). Do they not see a no fly is like the scene in footloose with tractor chicken? Only by folly can a good result occur.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 12:29:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 11:54:06 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/24/2016 12:58:59 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.

Yes it would be a disaster. Well, perhaps not a disaster, but yet another foolish misadventure in a part of the world we simply don't belong in.

The interactions with Russian aircraft alone is a sure opportunity for unintended consequences.

Not trying to attack Obama or what Hillary is proposing (no need to make a Trump commentary. He is as viable as Truman at this point). Do they not see a no fly is like the scene in footloose with tractor chicken? Only by folly can a good result occur.

I agree, and not a bad analogy.

Clinton is not my fit for this issue. She is way to hawkish for me, and seems to suffer from the same obsession with the ME as the right. I can't find one reason to keep interfering in this part of the globe.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 12:34:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:29:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/24/2016 11:54:06 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/24/2016 12:58:59 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.

Yes it would be a disaster. Well, perhaps not a disaster, but yet another foolish misadventure in a part of the world we simply don't belong in.

The interactions with Russian aircraft alone is a sure opportunity for unintended consequences.

Not trying to attack Obama or what Hillary is proposing (no need to make a Trump commentary. He is as viable as Truman at this point). Do they not see a no fly is like the scene in footloose with tractor chicken? Only by folly can a good result occur.

I agree, and not a bad analogy.

Clinton is not my fit for this issue. She is way to hawkish for me, and seems to suffer from the same obsession with the ME as the right. I can't find one reason to keep interfering in this part of the globe.

Me either. Being hawkish with a clear and present danger is one thing. Linking terrorism to everything under the sun is exactly what tore the country apart under Bush.

Yes if our shoelace gets stuck on the accelerator and Syria, Iran, and Russia (for that matter, Turkey is bombing parts of Syria ad well) pull a Chuck, ok we appear to make the world safe for what... retribution for those we are protecting? Same folly as Iraq; chew, swallow, repeat.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 1:37:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 11:49:19 PM, YYW wrote:

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.

With Obama, the Russians would break a no-fly zone. With Clinton, it's unlikely that they would because they know that she would reign hell down upon them if they did.

That's why we can't afford ClintonHawk.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 1:42:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:19:29 AM, YYW wrote:

Don't be so sure. For Putin, the stakes are higher than they are for the United States. More and sustained losses for Putin means that he needs a steroid shot of foreign policy victories. He might just manage to stumble into a war.

All the more reason not to provoke Putin. All the more reason to get the hell out of the ME.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 3:08:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 11:50:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.
Interfering in Syria is already a disaster. Staying a no fly zone makes a bad policy a calamitous one
Let's put this in context first. The OP is a notorious Putin bot and the sourced material is from RT (Russia Today), which is the Kremlin's own English-speaking propaganda tool, i.e., state-controlled disinformation. As such, the context presented should be dismissed out of hand as nonsense. Then again, just like the flat-earther conspiracy theorist in the science forum, a broken clock is right twice a day.

What is at stake here is the geopolitical condition underlying the Carter Doctrine (designed by Brzezinski): "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Our goal in the region should therefore be to exercise negative control in a calm and calculating manner, that is to say, maintain ties with the region's core powers (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel) while keeping local competitors (Iran, ISIS) and outside parties (Russia) bleeding without bloodying our own hands. This requires a balancing act worthy of a political genius -- an Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan. Clinton -- however influenced by Kissinger et consortes -- remains a big question mark. Being hawkish vis-a-vis Obama or Sanders is no big feat.

What we know from history is that the exclusive effect of a "humanitarian" intervention is the prolongation of conflict -- the very opposite of its intended purpose -- where we risk anything from a war of attrition (Korea, Vietnam) to outright genocide (Biafra, Bosnia). But, if we allow ourselves to speculate freely, maybe that is the preferred option in this case. Because if the NFZ policy leaves Russia, Iran, and Assad broken and bleeding for years ahead -- and undertaken at a minimal cost as it is structurally organized and upheld via NATO -- then we should by all means pursue it. Because nothing would be as destabilizing to world order, or as bolstering for ISIS and other Sunni terrorists in the region, as the final victory of a Shia front under the aegis of Iranian ground forces and the Russian navy and air force.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 3:28:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 3:08:28 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/23/2016 11:50:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/23/2016 11:44:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

"No-Fly Zone Would Require War With Syria and Russia".

I find that the premise of a no fly zone is the threat of force if it so happens to be that the rules of the no fly zone are broken. This means that we must be willing to enforce the existence of the No Fly Zone in Syria, as Hillary has proposed. If that is the case, then we would be at a crossroad - either the Russians see that we are willing to use force and they refuse to break the rules of that no fly zone, or they impede upon the no fly zone. If they happen to do so, then we can do either one of two things - shoot their plane down, which will trigger an aggressive response, or do nothing, which will then make the no fly zone moot.

Establishing this would be a disastrous idea on all fronts.
Interfering in Syria is already a disaster. Staying a no fly zone makes a bad policy a calamitous one
Let's put this in context first. The OP is a notorious Putin bot and the sourced material is from RT (Russia Today), which is the Kremlin's own English-speaking propaganda tool, i.e., state-controlled disinformation. As such, the context presented should be dismissed out of hand as nonsense. Then again, just like the flat-earther conspiracy theorist in the science forum, a broken clock is right twice a day.

What is at stake here is the geopolitical condition underlying the Carter Doctrine (designed by Brzezinski): "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Our goal in the region should therefore be to exercise negative control in a calm and calculating manner, that is to say, maintain ties with the region's core powers (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel) while keeping local competitors (Iran, ISIS) and outside parties (Russia) bleeding without bloodying our own hands. This requires a balancing act worthy of a political genius -- an Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan. Clinton -- however influenced by Kissinger et consortes -- remains a big question mark. Being hawkish vis-a-vis Obama or Sanders is no big feat.

What we know from history is that the exclusive effect of a "humanitarian" intervention is the prolongation of conflict -- the very opposite of its intended purpose -- where we risk anything from a war of attrition (Korea, Vietnam) to outright genocide (Biafra, Bosnia). But, if we allow ourselves to speculate freely, maybe that is the preferred option in this case. Because if the NFZ policy leaves Russia, Iran, and Assad broken and bleeding for years ahead -- and undertaken at a minimal cost as it is structurally organized and upheld via NATO -- then we should by all means pursue it. Because nothing would be as destabilizing to world order, or as bolstering for ISIS and other Sunni terrorists in the region, as the final victory of a Shia front under the aegis of Iranian ground forces and the Russian navy and air force.

Same arguments that always lead to similar conclusions. There hasn't been one intervention that has not led to escalation in the Middle East. And not one has been successful except for Gilf War 1 and a strong case could be made that is was influence neutral at best.

The carter doctrine is outdated in and of itself. We have 0 national interest in that region. All of those conflicts cited where political movements vs societal struggles based on religious, cultural, and tribal associations mainly do to extremely poor partitioning post WW1 and WW2 (just like India Pakistan Bangladesh... 3 wars we managed to stay out of).

At a certain point it has to be realized that we are not doing ourselves any favors. You say bleed them? They will do that on their own. We can sell, not donate weapons but that should be the extent.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 4:25:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:19:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/23/2016 11:57:12 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
He's already consolidated his political power considerably well, as he has been able to craft an image of him against the West.

That's a part of the picture, and to the extent you're describing that part, you're right. There are a lot of people in Russia who are very fond of the paternalistic strong man image he's garnered.

http://yogadork.com...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 4:35:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Russia also has much more riding on this, and so will have a much stronger will to continue the conflict. The US, on the other hand, is already weary of wars in the Middle East. We also haven't fought against a foe with defenses on the level of Russia's for generations. Carrier strikes inland, against a foe with mobile air defenses and the satellite infrastructure to detect our launches in advance, is a world away from carpet bombing insurgents. It would politically cripple Clinton among her own base, and erode her support in Congress.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:35:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 3:28:55 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Same arguments that always lead to similar conclusions. There hasn't been one intervention that has not led to escalation in the Middle East.
That goes for any intervention anywhere. As I posted above, all meddling leads to anything from wars of attrition or outright genocide; there is never a good outcome. Foreign affairs is not for the weak in spirit.

And not one has been successful except for Gilf War 1 and a strong case could be made that is was influence neutral at best.
We didn't achieve our objective there either. But the NFZ policy set up by Bush-41, and then prolonged by Clinton-42 and Bush-43, was successful insofar as it prohibited Saddam from spreading warfare in the region. Yet he was still destabilizing Israel by supporting Palestinian terrorists, contributing financially to the families of "martyrs."

The carter doctrine is outdated in and of itself. We have 0 national interest in that region.
I disagree. Like the Monroe Doctrine in our near-abroad, the Carter Doctrine is in place to counter any movement that may upset the balance of power in the larger Middle East. If the Suez Canal or the Strait of Hormuz falls out of the hands of our indirect control, you will see a negative effect in world trade.

All of those conflicts cited where political movements vs societal struggles based on religious, cultural, and tribal associations mainly do to extremely poor partitioning post WW1 and WW2 (just like India Pakistan Bangladesh... 3 wars we managed to stay out of).
This is not about societal struggles but great power politics across civilizational divides. The Sunni-Shia split is tribal in nature and regards the dominion of the Arabian Peninsula and, by extension, the worldwide ummah. Were Iran to acquire nuclear capability, while simultaneously exerting negative control over Syria and Iraq, it would make the India-Pakistan conflict pale in comparison.

We can stop such a scenario, and bleed the belligerent, through offshore balancing (re: Mearsheimer).

At a certain point it has to be realized that we are not doing ourselves any favors. You say bleed them? They will do that on their own. We can sell, not donate weapons but that should be the extent.
I would have to see the cost-benefit analysis before taking a final stand, remaining agnostic in the interim. But we should keep in mind that the NFZ was effective against Saddam for over a decade.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 6:05:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:35:03 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/24/2016 3:28:55 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Same arguments that always lead to similar conclusions. There hasn't been one intervention that has not led to escalation in the Middle East.
That goes for any intervention anywhere. As I posted above, all meddling leads to anything from wars of attrition or outright genocide; there is never a good outcome. Foreign affairs is not for the weak in spirit.

And not one has been successful except for Gilf War 1 and a strong case could be made that is was influence neutral at best.
We didn't achieve our objective there either. But the NFZ policy set up by Bush-41, and then prolonged by Clinton-42 and Bush-43, was successful insofar as it prohibited Saddam from spreading warfare in the region. Yet he was still destabilizing Israel by supporting Palestinian terrorists, contributing financially to the families of "martyrs."

The carter doctrine is outdated in and of itself. We have 0 national interest in that region.
I disagree. Like the Monroe Doctrine in our near-abroad, the Carter Doctrine is in place to counter any movement that may upset the balance of power in the larger Middle East. If the Suez Canal or the Strait of Hormuz falls out of the hands of our indirect control, you will see a negative effect in world trade.

All of those conflicts cited where political movements vs societal struggles based on religious, cultural, and tribal associations mainly do to extremely poor partitioning post WW1 and WW2 (just like India Pakistan Bangladesh... 3 wars we managed to stay out of).
This is not about societal struggles but great power politics across civilizational divides. The Sunni-Shia split is tribal in nature and regards the dominion of the Arabian Peninsula and, by extension, the worldwide ummah. Were Iran to acquire nuclear capability, while simultaneously exerting negative control over Syria and Iraq, it would make the India-Pakistan conflict pale in comparison.

We can stop such a scenario, and bleed the belligerent, through offshore balancing (re: Mearsheimer).

At a certain point it has to be realized that we are not doing ourselves any favors. You say bleed them? They will do that on their own. We can sell, not donate weapons but that should be the extent.
I would have to see the cost-benefit analysis before taking a final stand, remaining agnostic in the interim. But we should keep in mind that the NFZ was effective against Saddam for over a decade.

It was against an outdated air force with decades old sams. Plus we eviscerated the radar network.

The ironic part is the no fly zone (only against fixed wing) did actually give us the legal right for gw2 (vs the stupid wmd rationale. We are taught NBC in the military. WMD is a politician medium contrived acronym... I contend out of fear and a power grab but that's probably granting too much intelligence. More than likely it was just ignorance).

When I was in Baghdad I found the shi'a way more welcoming than the Sunni. Anecdotal? Yes. But I can definitively state those I interacted with had zero affinity for Iran and their vassals such as Sadr. Ironically he is 1 day older.

Mosul will say a lot about the Iraqi cooperation. Kurds have already put limits on where the Iraqi shi'a militias can operate. I doubt it leads to more than skirmishes but you never know. Since most of the bombings there are against shi'a shrines/festivals/gatherings, a group will only take so much. All the more reason to sell, not arm.

I see no legal justification for imposing a no fly zone in Syria. Turkey, Russia, and our Air Force all conduct sorties against different, and often the same, groups.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 6:53:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 6:05:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
When I was in Baghdad I found the shi'a way more welcoming than the Sunni. Anecdotal? Yes. But I can definitively state those I interacted with had zero affinity for Iran and their vassals such as Sadr. Ironically he is 1 day older.
I can imagine that it is due to the Sunnis, who were previously the ruling elite as well as a minority, having lost their special status as a direct result of the American presence.

Mosul will say a lot about the Iraqi cooperation. Kurds have already put limits on where the Iraqi shi'a militias can operate. I doubt it leads to more than skirmishes but you never know. Since most of the bombings there are against shi'a shrines/festivals/gatherings, a group will only take so much. All the more reason to sell, not arm.
The benefits of selling versus arming is still a question of having more information available, so I remain agnostic on that as well. The benefit of engaging the Kurds is that they constitute a tightly knit tribe with no loyalty to any outside power.

I see no legal justification for imposing a no fly zone in Syria. Turkey, Russia, and our Air Force all conduct sorties against different, and often the same, groups.
Internationally, Article 51 of the UN Charter grants any nation or group of nations the inherent right to anticipatory self-defense. Nationally, Congress only holds the power of the purse, meaning that it has no right to restrict the Commander in Chief or to prohibit the movement of troops from one position to another. As such, our Armed Forces are still operating under the War Powers Act of 1941 -- but I am certain you knew that already.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:27:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 6:53:59 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/24/2016 6:05:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
When I was in Baghdad I found the shi'a way more welcoming than the Sunni. Anecdotal? Yes. But I can definitively state those I interacted with had zero affinity for Iran and their vassals such as Sadr. Ironically he is 1 day older.
I can imagine that it is due to the Sunnis, who were previously the ruling elite as well as a minority, having lost their special status as a direct result of the American presence.

Mosul will say a lot about the Iraqi cooperation. Kurds have already put limits on where the Iraqi shi'a militias can operate. I doubt it leads to more than skirmishes but you never know. Since most of the bombings there are against shi'a shrines/festivals/gatherings, a group will only take so much. All the more reason to sell, not arm.
The benefits of selling versus arming is still a question of having more information available, so I remain agnostic on that as well. The benefit of engaging the Kurds is that they constitute a tightly knit tribe with no loyalty to any outside power.

I see no legal justification for imposing a no fly zone in Syria. Turkey, Russia, and our Air Force all conduct sorties against different, and often the same, groups.
Internationally, Article 51 of the UN Charter grants any nation or group of nations the inherent right to anticipatory self-defense. Nationally, Congress only holds the power of the purse, meaning that it has no right to restrict the Commander in Chief or to prohibit the movement of troops from one position to another. As such, our Armed Forces are still operating under the War Powers Act of 1941 -- but I am certain you knew that already.

Yes: one of my biggest rails is repealing the war powers act, and not really for the reason many might assume.

Point blank it's about politics. War powers only grants 60 days without congressional authority. However, congressional authority is not a declaration of war. (Btw, war power was 73, not 41).

So congress can approve then play politics with authority as its all on the president. That I wouldn't care but Americans are fickle. Tactics and motives are politicized. Who pays? Those idiots like me riding in a convoy operating on asinine rules of engagement.

Ultimately there is 1 way to fight and win but hundreds of ways to interfere. We haven't fought to win since Ww2. People think that's horrible. I contend it's short, more cost effective, and has a lower mortality rate than what has occurred the last 60 years.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:48:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:27:25 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Yes: one of my biggest rails is repealing the war powers act, and not really for the reason many might assume.
Point blank it's about politics. War powers only grants 60 days without congressional authority. However, congressional authority is not a declaration of war. (Btw, war power was 73, not 41).
No, I was referring to the First War Powers Act of 1941. Congress declares war, POTUS/CIC commands the troops. But the complexity of the Cold War -- and Congressional partisanship -- changed our practice. Rather than declaring war as before, we redefined conflicts as policing efforts. The "authorization for the use of military force" is purely cosmetic, not a formal declaration of war; Clinton-42 didn't bother with one in 1999 upon intervening in Kosovo, after the legislation failed to pass the House; Obama never even bothered to introduce legislation for any war efforts. Regardless, the current legal basis for all ongoing conflicts is the 1941 Act; it is the formal Congressional Declaration of War which authorizes every troop movement and war effort. The 1973 resolution is a slight adjustment of these presidential powers, including the 60-day limit.

So congress can approve then play politics with authority as its all on the president. That I wouldn't care but Americans are fickle. Tactics and motives are politicized. Who pays? Those idiots like me riding in a convoy operating on asinine rules of engagement.
Beyond the partisan bickering, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is likely unconstitutional -- the legislature directly overriding the president's command as CIC and limiting the deployment of troops -- and should therefore be overturned. Then again, any president can simply choose to ignore it. Violating the law is hardly a cause for impeachment, re: Clinton-42, Obama.

Ultimately there is 1 way to fight and win but hundreds of ways to interfere. We haven't fought to win since Ww2. People think that's horrible. I contend it's short, more cost effective, and has a lower mortality rate than what has occurred the last 60 years.
And that would be better appreciated if we allowed ourselves to revisit Clausewitz and understand that war is the continuation of politics/policy by other means. We are currently swamped with contradictory national security objectives, which for some reason include the "right to protect" vulnerable populations, "humanitarian" universalism, or spreading democracy and "freedom." Now, these are undoubtedly important goals -- but they do not belong among our national security objectives.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:51:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:27:25 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

Ultimately there is 1 way to fight and win but hundreds of ways to interfere. We haven't fought to win since Ww2. People think that's horrible. I contend it's short, more cost effective, and has a lower mortality rate than what has occurred the last 60 years.

We will never stop apologizing for Hiroshima, so we are not actually able to win a war until that is over.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 9:08:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 8:48:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:27:25 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Yes: one of my biggest rails is repealing the war powers act, and not really for the reason many might assume.
Point blank it's about politics. War powers only grants 60 days without congressional authority. However, congressional authority is not a declaration of war. (Btw, war power was 73, not 41).
No, I was referring to the First War Powers Act of 1941. Congress declares war, POTUS/CIC commands the troops. But the complexity of the Cold War -- and Congressional partisanship -- changed our practice. Rather than declaring war as before, we redefined conflicts as policing efforts. The "authorization for the use of military force" is purely cosmetic, not a formal declaration of war; Clinton-42 didn't bother with one in 1999 upon intervening in Kosovo, after the legislation failed to pass the House; Obama never even bothered to introduce legislation for any war efforts. Regardless, the current legal basis for all ongoing conflicts is the 1941 Act; it is the formal Congressional Declaration of War which authorizes every troop movement and war effort. The 1973 resolution is a slight adjustment of these presidential powers, including the 60-day limit.

So congress can approve then play politics with authority as its all on the president. That I wouldn't care but Americans are fickle. Tactics and motives are politicized. Who pays? Those idiots like me riding in a convoy operating on asinine rules of engagement.
Beyond the partisan bickering, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is likely unconstitutional -- the legislature directly overriding the president's command as CIC and limiting the deployment of troops -- and should therefore be overturned. Then again, any president can simply choose to ignore it. Violating the law is hardly a cause for impeachment, re: Clinton-42, Obama.

Ultimately there is 1 way to fight and win but hundreds of ways to interfere. We haven't fought to win since Ww2. People think that's horrible. I contend it's short, more cost effective, and has a lower mortality rate than what has occurred the last 60 years.
And that would be better appreciated if we allowed ourselves to revisit Clausewitz and understand that war is the continuation of politics/policy by other means. We are currently swamped with contradictory national security objectives, which for some reason include the "right to protect" vulnerable populations, "humanitarian" universalism, or spreading democracy and "freedom." Now, these are undoubtedly important goals -- but they do not belong among our national security objectives.

Bingo on that last paragraph. Unfortunately, the lofty goals of humanitarianism etc...comes with a price that is exploited for political games by those in power, ratings in the media, and personal ego contests amongst the populace. So those populations and those of us who have tried in the past or are now can't do what we see first needs to be done by ridiculous rules of engagement