Indeed I think you need more credible sources for this.
The PLA has really never recovered from the Cultural Revolution imo.
The PLA has really never recovered from the Cultural Revolution imo.
Will things get hot in Syria?
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
Well depends on who China is allied to...
The bear and the dragon in Syria this will be interesting.
This is the current situation in Syria. I did not expect ISIS to be holding so much of Syria.
But there are reports saying the Russians are not hitting the grey bits but the green bits.. Trying to keep Assad in power. IF that is true why can't anything be done about it?
Because we're secretly quite alright with Assad staying in power as long as that makes sure that the IS won't increase its influence.
And what do you expect us to do, really? If it's really Russian planes... are you suggesting we try and shoot Russian planes down?
I mean, that wouldn't even be a proxy war anymore then. Russia didn't like the US attacking Iraq in 2003 either just like we don't like Russia helping Assad. And the US' reasons for attacking Iraq were at least as fucked up as Russia's reasons for helping Assad.
Imagine Russia had started shooting American planes down back then. I mean, who could've blamed them? The US even lied to the UN.
I think this just isn't how it works, you gotta be realistic there. If the Russians have decided to actually go to war there then we won't do more than supporting the rebels with weapons and training.
But hey, now Americans know what the rest of us felt like in 2003. Outraged but helpless.
I wish the situation in Syria was less fucked up but...
Last edited:
Because we're secretly quite alright with Assad staying in power as long as that makes sure that the IS won't increase its influence.
And what do you expect us to do, really? If it's really Russian planes... are you suggesting we try and shoot Russian planes down?
I mean, that wouldn't even be a proxy war anymore then. Russia didn't like the US attacking Iraq in 2003 either just like we don't like Russia helping Assad. And the US' reasons for attacking Iraq were at least as fucked up as Russia's reasons for helping Assad.
Imagine Russia had started shooting American planes down back then. I mean, who could've blamed them? The US even lied to the UN.
I think this just isn't how it works, you gotta be realistic there. If the Russians have decided to actually go to war there then we won't do more than supporting the rebels with weapons and training.
But hey, now Americans know what the rest of us felt like in 2003. Outraged but helpless.
The whole notion of war and politics is fucked up.
This is such a big mess.
Yeah, the Russians only got involved with this to back Assad, not push back IS. Once the rebels have been crushed, they might turn their attention to IS, but it's just as likely they may just help Assad shore up what he has left and write off the rest of the country.
The amount of territory IS controls within Syria looks impressive until you realize most of Syria's population lives in the Assad-controlled areas. Not that they aren't dangerous, but geography isn't everything.
As for the US and Russia accidentally coming into conflict: this is unlikely if only because Russian air capabilities are so far below those of the US. We operate at much higher ceilings where Russian planes could barely hope to reach. If we really wanted, we could shoot every Russian plane out of the sky with impunity. (I am not suggesting we should or that it's a good idea.) In addition, the pilots of both air forces are professionals and are not going to shoot blindly at planes they haven't identified, so if anyone's plane happens to get shot down by another aircraft, it would be hard to credibly call an accident.
The amount of territory IS controls within Syria looks impressive until you realize most of Syria's population lives in the Assad-controlled areas. Not that they aren't dangerous, but geography isn't everything.
As for the US and Russia accidentally coming into conflict: this is unlikely if only because Russian air capabilities are so far below those of the US. We operate at much higher ceilings where Russian planes could barely hope to reach. If we really wanted, we could shoot every Russian plane out of the sky with impunity. (I am not suggesting we should or that it's a good idea.) In addition, the pilots of both air forces are professionals and are not going to shoot blindly at planes they haven't identified, so if anyone's plane happens to get shot down by another aircraft, it would be hard to credibly call an accident.
You mean there's more precision there than there is when the US bombs a hospital in Afghanistan? I guess so!
The hospital bombing sounds more like carelessness rather than a lack of precision. That's what happens when you call in a bomb strike on militants without caring what's around them, I guess.
The ground is much more crowded than the sky.
The ground is much more crowded than the sky.
You don't think that it could escalate into nuclear war if we told the Russians not to bomb our rebel allies, they refused, and we shot down planes that continued to do so despite our warnings, do you?
Because if that is how it is, then this is very much a clusterfucked situation for the rebels, because that means they'll be without help.
Because we're secretly quite alright with Assad staying in power as long as that makes sure that the IS won't increase its influence.
And what do you expect us to do, really? If it's really Russian planes... are you suggesting we try and shoot Russian planes down?
I mean, that wouldn't even be a proxy war anymore then. Russia didn't like the US attacking Iraq in 2003 either just like we don't like Russia helping Assad. And the US' reasons for attacking Iraq were at least as fucked up as Russia's reasons for helping Assad.
Imagine Russia had started shooting American planes down back then. I mean, who could've blamed them? The US even lied to the UN.
I think this just isn't how it works, you gotta be realistic there. If the Russians have decided to actually go to war there then we won't do more than supporting the rebels with weapons and training.
But hey, now Americans know what the rest of us felt like in 2003. Outraged but helpless.
The whole notion of war and politics is fucked up.
This is such a big mess.
Stupid goddamned politics! Well, I'm NOT okay with Assad staying in power! I want him out of power, or I want him dead for his crimes, preferably the former, but he probably deserves the latter!
Ideally, any planes who shoot at our resistance allies would get shot at. Then again, why can't Russia just ally with us for just this once?!
I don't think the resistance has their own warplanes, meaning they lack air support. If I were a rebel, I don't think I'd see how this would end without me blown up, shot, or executed!
As for the Syrians who survive that aren't in Assad's little circle, I don't see how this won't end without them living under Assad's iron fist.
And it's frustrating, because I don't want Assad to win!
Oh, and that is another sore point! I can't believe the massive fail of our military! They should've been a lot more careful. I consider hitting a hospital to be a huge blunder that should never happen.
Apparently Turkish fighters were scrambled to intercept a Russian plane that had strayed over the border.
"Navigational error" of course but this is how incidents happen.
"Navigational error" of course but this is how incidents happen.
It's already a clusterfucked situation for them, which is not to say I disagree with you. It's just a mess and the various local factions involved are pawns rather than independent agents we actually give a shit about. This is why it's a proxy war.
Assad can't "win" at this point. His power and control are greatly diminished from what they were. But if he is to be removed, the question becomes: who replaces him? If the destruction of Assad's government simply creates an opening for IS to take over the rest of the country, I hope you would agree that's much, much worse than simply leaving Assad in power (or even helping him shore up what he has left.)
Politics is the art of the possible. A free and democratic Syria is not a possible outcome from what's happening now, as how Iraq and Afghanistan played out thoroughly demonstrate. The best we can hope for at this point is a gradual transition away from Assad's absolute rule into some kind of power-sharing arrangement that more closely resembles a military junta than a multiparty democracy. It sucks, but it is what it is.
There are some who believe the US bombed the hospital intentionally because MSF treats people regardless of which side they're on. The US has never been happy with this.
I can't say I can discount the possibility. Our approach generally is "our way or the highway," the "highway" being made of bombs.
Well, when you gotta kill people, do it in style, right?
Well, I give a shit about them. I respect them for taking the initiative to rise up and rebel against a government they don't agree with, and is proven to be non-negotiable and tyrannical.
I know it isn't even close to being the same, but I sympathize with them, and can't help but think of how the American colonies rebels against the British rule they saw as unjust.
I know I'm too much of an idealist, but I still would like to think that if we allied with and supported some of the more moderate groups, maybe we could have some of our values could rub off on them, and they could form a Syrian government that is more just than Assad's regime.
And as for ISIS taking over Assad like nature abhorring a vacuum: to hell with that! But I also think it is a good idea to help some of the moderate resistance cells to survive, while taking out ISIS. After they are all but gone, we can decide what to do with Assad, but I think we can all agree he is too much of a tyrant to deserve to stay in power.
But I guess this also depends of the actions of the most moderate of the resistance groups, and there is the possibility that they couldn't form a stable government, even with our help. I guess that there are different opinions on whether or not it would be worth the effort.
There are some who believe the US bombed the hospital intentionally because MSF treats people regardless of which side they're on. The US has never been happy with this.
I can't say I can discount the possibility. Our approach generally is "our way or the highway," the "highway" being made of bombs.[/QUOTE]
That's a horrible reason to bomb a hospital. The doctors there were honoring their oaths as doctors. What are they supposed to do, turn away patients the U.S. military doesn't like?
I don't even recognize this military that calls themselves part of our armed forces. Someone who gives the order to bomb a hospital just because they are treating people they don't like isn't someone who deserves to be in a position of authority, but deserves to be jailed for war crimes.
It scares me that military authorities in the U.S. military would kill a bunch of innocent people just to kill a bunch of terrorists, even if it is by accident.
And US Army doctors are also treating enemy combatants so i don't believe a second that this was the reason.
Most likely scenario was either a miscommunication or bad intelligence that lead to this strike, unfortunately this is not a rare occurence in combat (back when NATO forces bombed Serbia the US struck the Chinese embassy.. THAT i believe was entirely intentional as it was rumored that the Chinese harbored a Serbian intelligence post in their building).
As to the topic, i hope it doesn't get too hot. Superpowers firing this close to each other there's bound to be accidents though i don't believe the US and Russia have any intention of going to war with each other so even if either side killed some people from the other camp diplomacy should kick in immediately to prevent an escalation.
Unfortunately the Syrian rebels are fucked ten times over now that the Russians are bombing them. The Russians want Assad to remain in power as he's a very handy puppet for them in this region. They don't care a bit about ISIS since refugees are not flooding Russia.
There's been reports that Obama is planning to take Rakka, the capital of ISIS and cut off their main supply that way. Remains to be seen but i am worried about so many different sides conducting major operations in that area.
Most likely scenario was either a miscommunication or bad intelligence that lead to this strike, unfortunately this is not a rare occurence in combat (back when NATO forces bombed Serbia the US struck the Chinese embassy.. THAT i believe was entirely intentional as it was rumored that the Chinese harbored a Serbian intelligence post in their building).
As to the topic, i hope it doesn't get too hot. Superpowers firing this close to each other there's bound to be accidents though i don't believe the US and Russia have any intention of going to war with each other so even if either side killed some people from the other camp diplomacy should kick in immediately to prevent an escalation.
Unfortunately the Syrian rebels are fucked ten times over now that the Russians are bombing them. The Russians want Assad to remain in power as he's a very handy puppet for them in this region. They don't care a bit about ISIS since refugees are not flooding Russia.
There's been reports that Obama is planning to take Rakka, the capital of ISIS and cut off their main supply that way. Remains to be seen but i am worried about so many different sides conducting major operations in that area.
The trouble is I'm not sure there are any moderate groups left.
That's the problem really, it's just a mess.
I think the Russians are bothered about IS, but only insofar as IS are fighting against Assad, plus they have their own issues with Muslim populations on their southern borders so I imagine they wouldn't want IS ideas leaching into places like Chechnya.
Similar threads
